Quoth Darth Snowshoe: I'm a moron who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
Manning, stay strong man, is a fucking hero. He didn't dump a whole lot of documents. He gave them to professionals who evaluated them and decided what to publish. The fact that some of the pros weren't as pro as might have been hoped is not Manning's fault.
Moreover, any exposure of wrong doing, and any publishing of secret documents, is a good thing for humanity at large. Fuck America and the corrupt American government. Snowden should have taken everything and published it all (perhaps on Freenet). Burnt the entire fucking Americunt spy network.
Manning didn't just dump everything. He handed it over to professionals (Wikileaks and the newspapers) who worked to redact and pick out what to publish. The pros even offered to work with the US govt. to redact stuff that might have threatened people's safety, they said no.
The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.
Also, I wish Snowden had published everything he could get his hands on. Fuck the secret government.
I'm an anarchist. I want a society free from capitalism, the state, and other forms of hierarchy. (Oooh look, communism.)
But even so, I can see benefits in working within the state while we wait for the mythical general strike that will bring down the government and implement the seeds of a new society.
And so I can see the benefits of this style of mass migration. Except, good luck. It ain't working is it. They don't even have 20 000 people after ten years!
Besides, they are still capitalists most of them aren't they. They don't want true liberty, just liberty to accumulate wealth and oppress others that way. And any attempt to go against the wishes of the actual rich (as opposed to the merely wanna be rich) will result in them being shutdown by whichever police force got the bribe quickest. Freedom doesn't just come, you have to fight for it.
Manning, Wikileaks and the papers involved (including the Guardian, the same paper as in this case) didn't dump a whole load of material. They went through it, and attempted to remove information that might have been damaging to actual people. They asked the DoD to help. The DoD refused.
Wikileaks and the various papers published selected material, little by little. They didn't just dump it all on the Internet. (The fact that at a later date it was all dumped wasn't anything to do with Manning.)
So, give me a cite for "Real (and innocent) people had their lives hurt (and probably ended) by Manning's leaks." Because I don't believe it.
And the rest of your post is as bullshit. Manning is a humanitarian, a true hero. That this man is also a hero doesn't detract from Manning's heroism.
1) Write to the client and to the developer explaining that it's pretty shitty to remove the original author's name (and in some cases, in some places, illegal) from a work. Explain that you'd appreciate it if your name was put back as the original author. 2) Keep the project in your profile, and if you get a negative or no response from the client and other dev, include a note saying that the other dev removed your name. And because you kept all the development files (you did, didn't you?), you can write in your profile that that in an interview you can show the progression of this project from start to end.
In the future: * Always keep copies of files you have worked on (in a version control setup). (Especially useful if you keep the copyright. Reuse.) * Never sign over copyright if you can help it (give clients a license instead, make it BSD-like and they can still do whatever they want, except remove your name). * Include a clause in your contract (and you do have a contract before commencing work, don't you?) saying that the work can be included in your profile, along with a comment (praise or whatever) from the client. Link this comment to the client's website or contact details. * And in the rare situation that the client wants you to both hand over copyright, and not retain any of the code, then demand triple or more of your usual rate. Explain that this is to offset future loses from not being able to demonstrate your awesomeness. If they don't blink, you should have asked for ten times or more.
Heh. I bought a new computer last year. It came with Windoze 7. I booted once, I booted twice, I installed Ubuntu. Then, just last month, I wanted more space on my HD. I went into Windoze to remove some stuff so I could shrink the partition. It sat for an hour saying it was doing... something. I got sick of it, I booted back into Linux on a USB drive and wiped Windoze off my HD. Ubuntu got the lot.
I'm happy as Larry. (Except I don't have as many jet planes or yachts.
I normally enjoy Bennett's posts. But this one is a bit, well stupid. It wouldn't be too hard to give him a subdomain or something on the main/. site so that he can post his long articles. They can then come up like ordinary articles, with a link to the main text.
How is blowing up a school non-criminal? Well, I guess if I had permission and it was an old school, and I was part of the demolition team, in which case, why are you torturing me in the first place? All I want to do is blow up the school and get onto the next job! I'm not doing anything wrong!
But those terrorists, they're criminals. Blowing up a school full of children is a criminal act. And there's no good justification for torture ever. Even if it could, allegedly, prevent someone blowing up a school full of children.
OK, here I'll defend the fellow. It's no longer CmdrTaco's personal blog. And the fact that the editors keep letting these through is not Bennett's problem. If you don't want to see these things, complain to the editors, not Bennett.
Sorry Bennett, but your premise is flawed. Fewer restrictions on government are bad for everyone, because police state. And what TheCarp said.
Also, there is a right to remain silent, beyond the right not to self-incriminate, but the government just doesn't recognize it. Even if a person is given immunity from prosecution, they should not be threatened by jail or torture (but I repeat myself -- jail is merely a lighter form of torture, and leaves fewer physical marks) for refusing to help convict their friends or family (or anyone else).
Moreover, it is not always good to convict the guilty, even if they are guilty. Take some of the many victimless crimes, such as prostitution or certain drug use. Where is the societal good in convicting either the prostitute or the client?
And, what if by providing evidence that I didn't have anything to do with one crime (such as murder) I incriminate myself in relation to another? "No officer, I didn't murder that person, I was being taken up the ass by my dominatrix that night. Sure she'll vouch for that." Whoops, I just confessed to sodomy, unnatural acts etc. And even if it wasn't illegal, what business is it of the police what I did that night?
And, even if I claim to have been on the other side of town, a witness might come forward and say they saw me near the murder scene. Whoops, my entire testimony is in doubt, and I'm convicted based on circumstantial evidence... You said "giving a guilty person a chance to avoid tripping himself up was hardly a good thing". Yet, it is if they are guilty only of a victimless crime. Moreover, it is good to give an innocent person a chance to avoid tripping themselves up.
So, scenario is: Innocent suspect (suspected of breaking an unjust law, perhaps a law that defines no victim -- such as against prostitution) refuses to testify based on the right to not incriminate themself. Often a person found guilty who said that they were not, will be given a harsher punishment than a person who confesses from the start their guilt. However, nothing should be presumed from a person refusing to say anything. (They might be refusing for many reasons, including not wishing to say something embarrassing but not illegal that could harm their budding political career.)
1) By refusing to say anything, they can't be either tripped up, or provide testimony that could be contradicted (e.g. by a witness who didn't see what they thought they saw) and used as evidence of lying. Obviously the outcome could be different, as without the right to silence, they would have to give details, and then they could be considered to be lying because of the witness saying the opposite.
2) The outcome is obviously better if an innocent person is not convicted. The outcome is also better if an innocent person does not have to provide embarrassing details to avoid conviction. ("No I didn't do it, I was being whipped by my dominatrix, which is not illegal in this jurisdiction, I didn't want to say that because this is a deeply conservative place, and now I have no chance of doing well with my whip & buggy business.")
3) Criteria three is overreaching and flawed. As noted above, we want to benefit all suspects, as all are innocent until proven guilty. However, obviously it is better if even a guilty person walk free than be convicted of this unjust law.
4) The benefit relies solely on the right not to self incriminate.
5) I'm not entirely sure what you mean by criteria five.
I could argue that this scenario doesn't FAIL3, because innocent people have both the threat of conviction, and the airing of their dirty laundry in public. The guilty only have the threat of being convicted. Yet, because criteria three is a fail on its own, so is this criteria.
"When Xbox One is on and you're simply having a conversation in your living room, your conversation is not being recorded or uploaded." They also say data gathered during normal use won't leave the console without your explicit permission.
All it takes is a single cracker/hacker and it's gone.
After I read your post I went and closed everything, logged out, and tried the Gnome Fallback (for some reason I'd already had it installed). If I had known about it before, I might never have given Gnome 3 a proper chance! I do have some complaints after having used it for a few minutes.
1) I had to use the Compiz manager thing to enable alt-tab window switching. 2) I can't move the top panel. 3) I got used to being able to hit 'Super' and start typing to get a program. 4) The virtual window setup seems fucked. It seems this is at least partly a Compiz problem. 5) I can't quickly change the color of the panels that I can see.
Overall, I think it isn't quite as good as Gnome 2 was, and it loses some of the goodness from Gnome 3. I think I'll switch back to Gnome 3 with extensions.
I think there is a big difference between actual Gnome Classic as discussed in this series of posts, and whatever you are talking about. What you're talking about (Gnome Fallback) is not Gnome Classic. Gnome Classic is Gnome 3.8 + a number of extensions, I think, so won't run if you can't get Gnome 3.8. I also don't want to touch Cinnamon or MATE, for much the same reason as yourself, plus some other reasons.
Anyway, overall I enjoyed reading the series of posts. The author gives some extensions to try out if for some reason you can use Gnome Classic (e.g. you are running an older Fedora). That alone was worth the price of admission for me. I've got a number of extensions currently installed, but I'm not overly happy with at least two. Moreover, I can't just see how to install Gnome 3.8 on Ubuntu 12.04 (any one got any hints), so I'll be fiddling a little more with extensions I guess.
I'm still using Gnome 3.4.2 (what comes with Ubuntu 12.04, via the Gnome Team I believe). I still miss a lot of Gnome 2 features (like getting rid of the top bar, and moving it to the bottom). But, overall, I appreciate many of the changes (I've grown to like the activities tab, and searching for programs, though I would like to pin the order so that LibreOffice Calc, and the Calculator don't keep switching around).
However, I think I would like to try Gnome Classic, and I think I might work out how to force it into Ubuntu 12.04...
Yes, that's wonderful. Except that Gnome 3 (what I run, but only because Gnome 2 is no longer supported, and I don't want to mess with whatever abomination the Mint team came up with) has an unmovable top bar. Just like on a Mac. And considering I never run my browser fullscreen, that also is ruled out as a reason why I might want it.
I.e. for me, it's a worse design to have tabs on top. I can't gain the advantages you mention, but I lose a lot. Various other computer users (anyone running MacOS X, Unity or Gnome 3) will have the same problem.
So, don't fucking make the change compulsory and I won't have to come around to your house and smash up your computer (using the generic you).
Nuke plants might not directly produce CO2, but they do indirectly. Think about mining and shipping the fuel. Think about the cost of decommissioning a plant at the end of its life. Once a wind turbine is set up it requires virtually no CO2 to run, beyond the vehicles to transport maintenance engineers.
Can I quickly and easily change what website I am searching using the address bar? At present in my search box, I can search nine different websites. Four are search engines (DuckDuckGo, Ixquick, Google & Yahoo), Wikipedia (used all the time when I know that's what I want), Wiktionary (similarly), Urban Dictionary (same again), Wolfram Alpha (good for many calculations), and the WordPress Codex. Can I search all of these easily from the address bar without having to remember a shortcut? (Some of them, e.g. the Codex, Urban Dictionary, Google & Yahoo, I use very occasionally).
First: Search for the addon Status-4-evar [sic] to keep/replace your status bar.
Second: Product manager Asa Dotzler, is this the same person responsible for some of the abominable changes in 4.0?
Third: "Separate Bookmark Star from locationBar and merge with Bookmarks Menu item", well that sucks. (Also, if you hate having stop and refresh as one button, edit the tool bar and drag stop to the left of refresh. Who's bright idea was it to combine those two? I want to hit stop, and if I hit it more than once, it starts to refresh the entire page. The exact opposite of what I want!)
Fourth: Tabs under the address bar please. I don't care about your ideas about how it's illogical, I am more likely to want to change tabs than to click on the address bar, and if I need to get to the address bar I can use ctrl-L or alt-D.
Fifth: I hate the Chrome UI, the new MSIE UI and similar. Don't do it to Firefox as well!
Sixth: From the article: "In this vein, there is a discussion of removing the Add-on Bar completely, killing user-created custom toolbars, and having the main toolbar feature a dedicated area for add-on buttons and widgets instead." What a bloody awful idea. What will I do with my Web Developer toolbar than?
Seventh: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Mozilla will push these changes through regardless. Just because. We can only hope that addons will be developed to revert the more moronic changes (like getting rid of the status bar).
Slashdot Mirror
Quoth Darth Snowshoe: I'm a moron who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
Manning, stay strong man, is a fucking hero. He didn't dump a whole lot of documents. He gave them to professionals who evaluated them and decided what to publish. The fact that some of the pros weren't as pro as might have been hoped is not Manning's fault.
Moreover, any exposure of wrong doing, and any publishing of secret documents, is a good thing for humanity at large. Fuck America and the corrupt American government. Snowden should have taken everything and published it all (perhaps on Freenet). Burnt the entire fucking Americunt spy network.
Manning didn't just dump everything. He handed it over to professionals (Wikileaks and the newspapers) who worked to redact and pick out what to publish. The pros even offered to work with the US govt. to redact stuff that might have threatened people's safety, they said no.
The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.
Also, I wish Snowden had published everything he could get his hands on. Fuck the secret government.
I'm an anarchist. I want a society free from capitalism, the state, and other forms of hierarchy. (Oooh look, communism.)
But even so, I can see benefits in working within the state while we wait for the mythical general strike that will bring down the government and implement the seeds of a new society.
And so I can see the benefits of this style of mass migration. Except, good luck. It ain't working is it. They don't even have 20 000 people after ten years!
Besides, they are still capitalists most of them aren't they. They don't want true liberty, just liberty to accumulate wealth and oppress others that way. And any attempt to go against the wishes of the actual rich (as opposed to the merely wanna be rich) will result in them being shutdown by whichever police force got the bribe quickest. Freedom doesn't just come, you have to fight for it.
*cough*bullshit*cough*
Manning, Wikileaks and the papers involved (including the Guardian, the same paper as in this case) didn't dump a whole load of material. They went through it, and attempted to remove information that might have been damaging to actual people. They asked the DoD to help. The DoD refused.
Wikileaks and the various papers published selected material, little by little. They didn't just dump it all on the Internet. (The fact that at a later date it was all dumped wasn't anything to do with Manning.)
So, give me a cite for "Real (and innocent) people had their lives hurt (and probably ended) by Manning's leaks." Because I don't believe it.
And the rest of your post is as bullshit. Manning is a humanitarian, a true hero. That this man is also a hero doesn't detract from Manning's heroism.
Only 'cause you got the American version. For everyone else it's "fuck".
fuck - the rudest word in the universe.
you fuck.
Very deep. You know they have a page on Reader's Digest for people like you.
1) Write to the client and to the developer explaining that it's pretty shitty to remove the original author's name (and in some cases, in some places, illegal) from a work. Explain that you'd appreciate it if your name was put back as the original author.
2) Keep the project in your profile, and if you get a negative or no response from the client and other dev, include a note saying that the other dev removed your name. And because you kept all the development files (you did, didn't you?), you can write in your profile that that in an interview you can show the progression of this project from start to end.
In the future:
* Always keep copies of files you have worked on (in a version control setup). (Especially useful if you keep the copyright. Reuse.)
* Never sign over copyright if you can help it (give clients a license instead, make it BSD-like and they can still do whatever they want, except remove your name).
* Include a clause in your contract (and you do have a contract before commencing work, don't you?) saying that the work can be included in your profile, along with a comment (praise or whatever) from the client. Link this comment to the client's website or contact details.
* And in the rare situation that the client wants you to both hand over copyright, and not retain any of the code, then demand triple or more of your usual rate. Explain that this is to offset future loses from not being able to demonstrate your awesomeness. If they don't blink, you should have asked for ten times or more.
Heh. I bought a new computer last year. It came with Windoze 7. I booted once, I booted twice, I installed Ubuntu. Then, just last month, I wanted more space on my HD. I went into Windoze to remove some stuff so I could shrink the partition. It sat for an hour saying it was doing ... something. I got sick of it, I booted back into Linux on a USB drive and wiped Windoze off my HD. Ubuntu got the lot.
I'm happy as Larry. (Except I don't have as many jet planes or yachts.
kowai desu ne. ano hito ha hontani hen desu ne.
zenzen kawakunai.
I normally enjoy Bennett's posts. But this one is a bit, well stupid. It wouldn't be too hard to give him a subdomain or something on the main /. site so that he can post his long articles. They can then come up like ordinary articles, with a link to the main text.
How is blowing up a school non-criminal? Well, I guess if I had permission and it was an old school, and I was part of the demolition team, in which case, why are you torturing me in the first place? All I want to do is blow up the school and get onto the next job! I'm not doing anything wrong!
But those terrorists, they're criminals. Blowing up a school full of children is a criminal act. And there's no good justification for torture ever. Even if it could, allegedly, prevent someone blowing up a school full of children.
OK, here I'll defend the fellow. It's no longer CmdrTaco's personal blog. And the fact that the editors keep letting these through is not Bennett's problem. If you don't want to see these things, complain to the editors, not Bennett.
That's the video that others have mentioned. The one about don't say anything to the police.
Sorry Bennett, but your premise is flawed. Fewer restrictions on government are bad for everyone, because police state. And what TheCarp said.
Also, there is a right to remain silent, beyond the right not to self-incriminate, but the government just doesn't recognize it. Even if a person is given immunity from prosecution, they should not be threatened by jail or torture (but I repeat myself -- jail is merely a lighter form of torture, and leaves fewer physical marks) for refusing to help convict their friends or family (or anyone else).
Moreover, it is not always good to convict the guilty, even if they are guilty. Take some of the many victimless crimes, such as prostitution or certain drug use. Where is the societal good in convicting either the prostitute or the client?
And, what if by providing evidence that I didn't have anything to do with one crime (such as murder) I incriminate myself in relation to another? "No officer, I didn't murder that person, I was being taken up the ass by my dominatrix that night. Sure she'll vouch for that." Whoops, I just confessed to sodomy, unnatural acts etc. And even if it wasn't illegal, what business is it of the police what I did that night?
And, even if I claim to have been on the other side of town, a witness might come forward and say they saw me near the murder scene. Whoops, my entire testimony is in doubt, and I'm convicted based on circumstantial evidence... You said "giving a guilty person a chance to avoid tripping himself up was hardly a good thing". Yet, it is if they are guilty only of a victimless crime. Moreover, it is good to give an innocent person a chance to avoid tripping themselves up.
So, scenario is:
Innocent suspect (suspected of breaking an unjust law, perhaps a law that defines no victim -- such as against prostitution) refuses to testify based on the right to not incriminate themself. Often a person found guilty who said that they were not, will be given a harsher punishment than a person who confesses from the start their guilt. However, nothing should be presumed from a person refusing to say anything. (They might be refusing for many reasons, including not wishing to say something embarrassing but not illegal that could harm their budding political career.)
1) By refusing to say anything, they can't be either tripped up, or provide testimony that could be contradicted (e.g. by a witness who didn't see what they thought they saw) and used as evidence of lying.
Obviously the outcome could be different, as without the right to silence, they would have to give details, and then they could be considered to be lying because of the witness saying the opposite.
2) The outcome is obviously better if an innocent person is not convicted. The outcome is also better if an innocent person does not have to provide embarrassing details to avoid conviction. ("No I didn't do it, I was being whipped by my dominatrix, which is not illegal in this jurisdiction, I didn't want to say that because this is a deeply conservative place, and now I have no chance of doing well with my whip & buggy business.")
3) Criteria three is overreaching and flawed. As noted above, we want to benefit all suspects, as all are innocent until proven guilty.
However, obviously it is better if even a guilty person walk free than be convicted of this unjust law.
4) The benefit relies solely on the right not to self incriminate.
5) I'm not entirely sure what you mean by criteria five.
I could argue that this scenario doesn't FAIL3, because innocent people have both the threat of conviction, and the airing of their dirty laundry in public. The guilty only have the threat of being convicted. Yet, because criteria three is a fail on its own, so is this criteria.
All it takes is a single cracker/hacker and it's gone.
After I read your post I went and closed everything, logged out, and tried the Gnome Fallback (for some reason I'd already had it installed). If I had known about it before, I might never have given Gnome 3 a proper chance! I do have some complaints after having used it for a few minutes.
1) I had to use the Compiz manager thing to enable alt-tab window switching.
2) I can't move the top panel.
3) I got used to being able to hit 'Super' and start typing to get a program.
4) The virtual window setup seems fucked. It seems this is at least partly a Compiz problem.
5) I can't quickly change the color of the panels that I can see.
Overall, I think it isn't quite as good as Gnome 2 was, and it loses some of the goodness from Gnome 3. I think I'll switch back to Gnome 3 with extensions.
I think there is a big difference between actual Gnome Classic as discussed in this series of posts, and whatever you are talking about. What you're talking about (Gnome Fallback) is not Gnome Classic. Gnome Classic is Gnome 3.8 + a number of extensions, I think, so won't run if you can't get Gnome 3.8.
I also don't want to touch Cinnamon or MATE, for much the same reason as yourself, plus some other reasons.
Anyway, overall I enjoyed reading the series of posts. The author gives some extensions to try out if for some reason you can use Gnome Classic (e.g. you are running an older Fedora). That alone was worth the price of admission for me. I've got a number of extensions currently installed, but I'm not overly happy with at least two.
Moreover, I can't just see how to install Gnome 3.8 on Ubuntu 12.04 (any one got any hints), so I'll be fiddling a little more with extensions I guess.
I'm still using Gnome 3.4.2 (what comes with Ubuntu 12.04, via the Gnome Team I believe). I still miss a lot of Gnome 2 features (like getting rid of the top bar, and moving it to the bottom). But, overall, I appreciate many of the changes (I've grown to like the activities tab, and searching for programs, though I would like to pin the order so that LibreOffice Calc, and the Calculator don't keep switching around).
However, I think I would like to try Gnome Classic, and I think I might work out how to force it into Ubuntu 12.04...
Probably. After all, the site has been sold at least once since it had anything to do with the card game.
Boo ya.
Yes, that's wonderful. Except that Gnome 3 (what I run, but only because Gnome 2 is no longer supported, and I don't want to mess with whatever abomination the Mint team came up with) has an unmovable top bar. Just like on a Mac. And considering I never run my browser fullscreen, that also is ruled out as a reason why I might want it.
I.e. for me, it's a worse design to have tabs on top. I can't gain the advantages you mention, but I lose a lot. Various other computer users (anyone running MacOS X, Unity or Gnome 3) will have the same problem.
So, don't fucking make the change compulsory and I won't have to come around to your house and smash up your computer (using the generic you).
Nuke plants might not directly produce CO2, but they do indirectly. Think about mining and shipping the fuel. Think about the cost of decommissioning a plant at the end of its life.
Once a wind turbine is set up it requires virtually no CO2 to run, beyond the vehicles to transport maintenance engineers.
Bananas.
Or maybe I misread the GP.
Can I quickly and easily change what website I am searching using the address bar? At present in my search box, I can search nine different websites. Four are search engines (DuckDuckGo, Ixquick, Google & Yahoo), Wikipedia (used all the time when I know that's what I want), Wiktionary (similarly), Urban Dictionary (same again), Wolfram Alpha (good for many calculations), and the WordPress Codex. Can I search all of these easily from the address bar without having to remember a shortcut? (Some of them, e.g. the Codex, Urban Dictionary, Google & Yahoo, I use very occasionally).
First: Search for the addon Status-4-evar [sic] to keep/replace your status bar.
Second: Product manager Asa Dotzler, is this the same person responsible for some of the abominable changes in 4.0?
Third: "Separate Bookmark Star from locationBar and merge with Bookmarks Menu item", well that sucks. (Also, if you hate having stop and refresh as one button, edit the tool bar and drag stop to the left of refresh. Who's bright idea was it to combine those two? I want to hit stop, and if I hit it more than once, it starts to refresh the entire page. The exact opposite of what I want!)
Fourth: Tabs under the address bar please. I don't care about your ideas about how it's illogical, I am more likely to want to change tabs than to click on the address bar, and if I need to get to the address bar I can use ctrl-L or alt-D.
Fifth: I hate the Chrome UI, the new MSIE UI and similar. Don't do it to Firefox as well!
Sixth: From the article: "In this vein, there is a discussion of removing the Add-on Bar completely, killing user-created custom toolbars, and having the main toolbar feature a dedicated area for add-on buttons and widgets instead." What a bloody awful idea. What will I do with my Web Developer toolbar than?
Seventh: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Mozilla will push these changes through regardless. Just because. We can only hope that addons will be developed to revert the more moronic changes (like getting rid of the status bar).