Actually, in many states, it is. It's called barratry. For example, in Washington State:
RCW 9.12.010
Barratry.
Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.
=====
Further, some states have Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes, which carry tremendous fines. To win a SLAPP suit, one doesn't even need to prove damages, and there's no limit to the amount of money a jury can award.
C# is anything but "pretty much the same as Java." Go read a book or something.
But in regards to your comment, because C# considers value vs. reference types a matter of semantics rather than essence, the lack of compound fundamental types isn't as much of a problem as it is in Java. Just go ahead and define yourself a tuple. If ya want, overload operators for it (something else you can't do in Java).
public struct Tuple {
public object one;
public object two;
}
//...
public Tuple fooFunc() {
// blah
return Tuple( 4, new FooObject() );
}
You'll end up copying the tuple, but the overhead of this is minor (you won't copy the FooObject instance, either)! Not quite as elegant as Python or ML, but doable and readable.
C# even supports variable parameter lists (something Java doesn't), so you could write code like:
return Util.MakeList( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 );
The JVM was a revolutionary technology in its day, and it's still powerful enough for today's business software. But the Java language itself is pathetic. C# is definitely a great improvement and worth exploration even if it comes from Microsoft. It's a much better balance of power and simplicity (though it still uses the abominable C syntax).
Re:Unions are not really a good thing
on
Dial U for Union
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, all unions do is just foster mediocrity. That's why that talentless hack Steven Spielberg and all his director cronies are members of the Directors' Guild of America. They don't want to actually have to produce for a living. No, siree.
Rand-thumping idiots had best pay attention. Have you read a 10-k lately? Everyone in a suit is out to get you and will pitch you over the side in a hurry if it'll make their stock go up in value. The only two things we geeks have to stand up to these evil @#$#ers is skills and numbers, and it's about time we put them together.
This is true only on an equal-temperament instrument like a piano. On instruments like the violin or in voice, Db should be slightly higher than C#.
Also, in classical composition, they're "logically" different even if they have the same pitch value. For instance, the minor 7th of the key of C is a Bb, but the major third of the key of F# is A#. Even though A# and Bb are the "same" on the piano, melodies arranged around Bb as a minor seventh are going to sound VERY different from those arranged around A# as a major third!
What this has to do with C++ is unclear, but I sometimes wonder if it's probably easier to express our software musically than in C++.
For large projects, being ethical quickly puts you out of business. You will be simply outbid by a big firm promising the world for less total dollars, and then they will come up with some excuse as to why they couldn't meet their ridiculous promises, and yes you still have to pay 10x the original estimate even though it was a fixed bid--it's in the contract, we're idemnified from our own arrogance, see.
I've cleaned up too many Big 5 messes to ever have any hope that ethical consulting pays. Far too often, IT managers are stupid, greedy morons, and you have no chance if some a-hole from a huge firm takes them out to golf at a fancy country club or sends them and their spouse on a cruise. A firm like Andertouche & Young will promise these freaks the world, they'll sign, and then they'll send an army of college students who will train on the client's dime and turn out crap for 10x the original bid.
Fortunately, someone with a sense of ethics and pride can make a niche living cleaning up after these jerks. But it's tough, unpleasant work with low margins. I think I'm already burned out.
I took the strategy of outlining my concerns with the enforcement of 42 USC 254(h) and suggested some mitigation strategy. The text of my comment is below:
SUMMARY
The FCC should not implement the so-called "CHIP Act" in the fashion outlined
in the proposed rulemaking notice and 42 USC 254(h) without provision for the
protection of freedom of expression guaranteed in the First Amendment and
informed consent of libraries and educational institutions purchasing
Internet "filtering" software.
AREA OF CONCERN
The most likely compliance with 42 USC 254 (h) will be with Interent
"filtering" software, which is based on inherently subjective notions of what
is appropriate for minors. The CHIP Act amounts to a subsidy of
technologically sloppy and often politically motivated corporations selling
software clearly more effective at blocking access to politically unpopular
sites than to text or images appealing to prurient interests. The blocking
software likely to be used by libraries in fearful compliance of the CHIP Act
will amount to government-imposed censorship of political opinion, albeit
indirectly, and there is no basis for deciding that minors do not deserve the
same access to politically unpopular ideas as adults.
Some examples of Internet filter products inappropriately blocking access to
Internet sites not restricted by 24 USC 24(h):
* N2H2 "Bess" software blocks WWW pages from organizations such as the Illinois
* Federation for Human Rights, articles on breast cancer from various
* universities, eating disorders resource groups, educational articles
* concerning birth control, and, most alarmingly, Peacefire, a watchdog
* organization reporting such malfunctions of Internet filtering software!
* Solid Oak Software, makers of CyberSITTER, has been notorious for legal
* harrassment of watchdog groups and other critics. CyberSITTER has been known
* to block left-leaning political sites (eg, National Organization for Women)
* for no apparent reason other than political disagreement.
* "Net Nanny" blocks computer science mailing lists from the University of
* Colorado--Boulder and medical science forums dedicated to discussion of
* diseases such as breast cancer and AIDS.
* PC Data Power's "NetRated" software frequently blocks web sites devoted to
* political action on behalf of gay and lesbian citizens even though the sites
* do not contain obscene or even indecent information.
(More info and verification available at www.peacefire.org.)
These are just a few examples of malfunctions which one might call "Type II"
errors--unnecessary filtering of information which need not be filtered from
minors under 42 USC 254 (h). ALL FILTERING PRODUCTS CONTAIN THESE
MALFUNCTIONS, even those not listed above. Many experts on the subject believe
it is impossible to construct Internet filtering software without compromising
the freedom of access to information by minors, and government-mandated use of
such software certainly amounts to censorship held to be prohibited by the
First Amendment.
CONCLUSION
The risk to liberal democracy (through government-enforced suppression of
dissent) is much greater than any benefits achieved by protecting minors from
"smut-kings" or the Internet bogeyman du jour. While I appreciate that
the FCC must enforce the law, I suggest that the FCC take
the following policy stances in order to protect against abuse of
Americans' First Amendment rights--
1) The FCC should certify all software claiming to facilitate compliance with
42 USC 254 (h).
2) In order to receive such certification, a vendor of such software MUST
release to public review a list of all filtered sites, as well as a reasonable
summary for criteria used to filter sites. In this way, libraries and
educational institutions may make informed decisions as to which filtering
products they purchase.
3) Vendors must not be allowed to hide behind 42 USC 254 (h) to shield them
from liability stemming from inappropriate filtering.
Admittedly, some of these measures may be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC.
However, I hope that the FCC can take whatever appropriate steps necessary
to meet the goals of these three ideas--to enable compliance with 42 USC 254
(h) without resorting to government-mandated censorship.
I've always thought of Bank of America as kind of evil, but apparently they have decided to stop this egregious sort of credit redlining by disregarding ChexSystems records over a year old as long as all delinquent amounts are paid. This was reported by the Chex Systems Bites! page.
A small bit of progress, but progress nonetheless. And kudos to B of A finally doing the right thing--though it's a sad state of affairs when such kudos are necessary!
The Mk39 was a roughly 2000 kt weapon. That's beefy for a US nuclear weapon--it was the USSR that had the 20 Mt mountain melters. Still, 2000 kt is enough to turn a typical rural county into a burning ruin.
Nuclear detonation of that magnitude is an active process....it's extremely unlikely something could trigger it accidentally.
However, it is plausible that the plutonium or uranium on board such a bomb could go critical, thereby causing a toxic, radioactive fire that would poison the area of impact. On the other hand, the damage wouldn't be widespread and the number of casualties would be small.
The site is very good. If you want to learn more about nuclear weapons, a good resource is the Federation of American Scientists'high-energy weapons archive.
By the way, if you're thinking about digging that stuff up--think again. One microgram of plutonium oxide embedded in your lungs or ingested into your bloodstream through a cut or scrape will irreversibly destroy your immune system in days. That's not enough to see even with a microscope. The only sign you'll have of something being wrong is that you'll start puking your guts up in about 12-24 hours, and then you'll start bleeding from every orifice. OK, maybe overdramatic, but mainlining heroin is relatively smart compared to a cavalier attitude towards Cold War-era artifacts possibly leaking plutonium!
Re:IT is something BOTH can use and want to. OUCH!
on
Information Poisoning
·
· Score: 2
While I'm not intent on using Slashdot as an outlet for misanthropy, "crovira" has the crux of the matter in range...he just didn't pull the trigger.
Carr's analysis itself contains a fatal error--in the United States, there is no substantive difference between "government control" and "corporate control." Both serve a distant, occupying elite which are not accountable to the majority. Appealing to the regulation of either is not productive.
Indeed, you can control corporations by "voting with your dollars"....but this inherently gives the wealthy a huge advantage if these corporations are influencing public behavior. Further, the same wealthy elite use the power of media outlets to discredit the democratic process, thus disillusioning the citizenry and making the vote a tool of yet another elite. Finally, the elite and their corporate servitors close the loop by blatantly bribing government officials at all levels of government...this is usually called "soft money contributions," but it's just a polite term for bribery.
If Carr is correct, the first step would have to be to make government more accountable to the people. But, the kinds of social changes required to make that happen would obviate the need for government intervention in the realm of information technology. Carr's article concerns an illusory problem--a problem that is a reflection of the true problem, which is that the world is largely controlled by a corporate oligarchy. The Orwell analogies are good, but the best analogy is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in many states, it is. It's called barratry. For example, in Washington State:
RCW 9.12.010
Barratry.
Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.
=====
Further, some states have Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes, which carry tremendous fines. To win a SLAPP suit, one doesn't even need to prove damages, and there's no limit to the amount of money a jury can award.
C# is anything but "pretty much the same as Java." Go read a book or something.
...
// blah
But in regards to your comment, because C# considers value vs. reference types a matter of semantics rather than essence, the lack of compound fundamental types isn't as much of a problem as it is in Java. Just go ahead and define yourself a tuple. If ya want, overload operators for it (something else you can't do in Java).
public struct Tuple {
public object one;
public object two;
}
//
public Tuple fooFunc() {
return Tuple( 4, new FooObject() );
}
You'll end up copying the tuple, but the overhead of this is minor (you won't copy the FooObject instance, either)! Not quite as elegant as Python or ML, but doable and readable.
C# even supports variable parameter lists (something Java doesn't), so you could write code like:
return Util.MakeList( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 );
The JVM was a revolutionary technology in its day, and it's still powerful enough for today's business software. But the Java language itself is pathetic. C# is definitely a great improvement and worth exploration even if it comes from Microsoft. It's a much better balance of power and simplicity (though it still uses the abominable C syntax).
Rand-thumping idiots had best pay attention. Have you read a 10-k lately? Everyone in a suit is out to get you and will pitch you over the side in a hurry if it'll make their stock go up in value. The only two things we geeks have to stand up to these evil @#$#ers is skills and numbers, and it's about time we put them together.
Instead of Heinlein's Revolt in 2100, we'll just have a revolting 2100....
What this has to do with C++ is unclear, but I sometimes wonder if it's probably easier to express our software musically than in C++.
(1) better them than a multinational corporation
(2) it's probably the only legitimate patent application this year
I've cleaned up too many Big 5 messes to ever have any hope that ethical consulting pays. Far too often, IT managers are stupid, greedy morons, and you have no chance if some a-hole from a huge firm takes them out to golf at a fancy country club or sends them and their spouse on a cruise. A firm like Andertouche & Young will promise these freaks the world, they'll sign, and then they'll send an army of college students who will train on the client's dime and turn out crap for 10x the original bid.
Fortunately, someone with a sense of ethics and pride can make a niche living cleaning up after these jerks. But it's tough, unpleasant work with low margins. I think I'm already burned out.
I took the strategy of outlining my concerns with the enforcement of 42 USC 254(h) and suggested some mitigation strategy. The text of my comment is below:
SUMMARY
The FCC should not implement the so-called "CHIP Act" in the fashion outlined
in the proposed rulemaking notice and 42 USC 254(h) without provision for the
protection of freedom of expression guaranteed in the First Amendment and
informed consent of libraries and educational institutions purchasing
Internet "filtering" software.
AREA OF CONCERN
The most likely compliance with 42 USC 254 (h) will be with Interent
"filtering" software, which is based on inherently subjective notions of what
is appropriate for minors. The CHIP Act amounts to a subsidy of
technologically sloppy and often politically motivated corporations selling
software clearly more effective at blocking access to politically unpopular
sites than to text or images appealing to prurient interests. The blocking
software likely to be used by libraries in fearful compliance of the CHIP Act
will amount to government-imposed censorship of political opinion, albeit
indirectly, and there is no basis for deciding that minors do not deserve the
same access to politically unpopular ideas as adults.
Some examples of Internet filter products inappropriately blocking access to
Internet sites not restricted by 24 USC 24(h):
* N2H2 "Bess" software blocks WWW pages from organizations such as the Illinois
* Federation for Human Rights, articles on breast cancer from various
* universities, eating disorders resource groups, educational articles
* concerning birth control, and, most alarmingly, Peacefire, a watchdog
* organization reporting such malfunctions of Internet filtering software!
* Solid Oak Software, makers of CyberSITTER, has been notorious for legal
* harrassment of watchdog groups and other critics. CyberSITTER has been known
* to block left-leaning political sites (eg, National Organization for Women)
* for no apparent reason other than political disagreement.
* "Net Nanny" blocks computer science mailing lists from the University of
* Colorado--Boulder and medical science forums dedicated to discussion of
* diseases such as breast cancer and AIDS.
* PC Data Power's "NetRated" software frequently blocks web sites devoted to
* political action on behalf of gay and lesbian citizens even though the sites
* do not contain obscene or even indecent information.
(More info and verification available at www.peacefire.org.)
These are just a few examples of malfunctions which one might call "Type II"
errors--unnecessary filtering of information which need not be filtered from
minors under 42 USC 254 (h). ALL FILTERING PRODUCTS CONTAIN THESE
MALFUNCTIONS, even those not listed above. Many experts on the subject believe
it is impossible to construct Internet filtering software without compromising
the freedom of access to information by minors, and government-mandated use of
such software certainly amounts to censorship held to be prohibited by the
First Amendment.
CONCLUSION
The risk to liberal democracy (through government-enforced suppression of
dissent) is much greater than any benefits achieved by protecting minors from
"smut-kings" or the Internet bogeyman du jour. While I appreciate that
the FCC must enforce the law, I suggest that the FCC take
the following policy stances in order to protect against abuse of
Americans' First Amendment rights--
1) The FCC should certify all software claiming to facilitate compliance with
42 USC 254 (h).
2) In order to receive such certification, a vendor of such software MUST
release to public review a list of all filtered sites, as well as a reasonable
summary for criteria used to filter sites. In this way, libraries and
educational institutions may make informed decisions as to which filtering
products they purchase.
3) Vendors must not be allowed to hide behind 42 USC 254 (h) to shield them
from liability stemming from inappropriate filtering.
Admittedly, some of these measures may be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC.
However, I hope that the FCC can take whatever appropriate steps necessary
to meet the goals of these three ideas--to enable compliance with 42 USC 254
(h) without resorting to government-mandated censorship.
Thank you.
A small bit of progress, but progress nonetheless. And kudos to B of A finally doing the right thing--though it's a sad state of affairs when such kudos are necessary!
- The Mk39 was a roughly 2000 kt weapon. That's beefy for a US nuclear weapon--it was the USSR that had the 20 Mt mountain melters. Still, 2000 kt is enough to turn a typical rural county into a burning ruin.
- Nuclear detonation of that magnitude is an active process....it's extremely unlikely something could trigger it accidentally.
- However, it is plausible that the plutonium or uranium on board such a bomb could go critical, thereby causing a toxic, radioactive fire that would poison the area of impact. On the other hand, the damage wouldn't be widespread and the number of casualties would be small.
The site is very good. If you want to learn more about nuclear weapons, a good resource is the Federation of American Scientists'high-energy weapons archive.By the way, if you're thinking about digging that stuff up--think again. One microgram of plutonium oxide embedded in your lungs or ingested into your bloodstream through a cut or scrape will irreversibly destroy your immune system in days. That's not enough to see even with a microscope. The only sign you'll have of something being wrong is that you'll start puking your guts up in about 12-24 hours, and then you'll start bleeding from every orifice. OK, maybe overdramatic, but mainlining heroin is relatively smart compared to a cavalier attitude towards Cold War-era artifacts possibly leaking plutonium!
While I'm not intent on using Slashdot as an outlet for misanthropy, "crovira" has the crux of the matter in range...he just didn't pull the trigger. Carr's analysis itself contains a fatal error--in the United States, there is no substantive difference between "government control" and "corporate control." Both serve a distant, occupying elite which are not accountable to the majority. Appealing to the regulation of either is not productive. Indeed, you can control corporations by "voting with your dollars"....but this inherently gives the wealthy a huge advantage if these corporations are influencing public behavior. Further, the same wealthy elite use the power of media outlets to discredit the democratic process, thus disillusioning the citizenry and making the vote a tool of yet another elite. Finally, the elite and their corporate servitors close the loop by blatantly bribing government officials at all levels of government...this is usually called "soft money contributions," but it's just a polite term for bribery. If Carr is correct, the first step would have to be to make government more accountable to the people. But, the kinds of social changes required to make that happen would obviate the need for government intervention in the realm of information technology. Carr's article concerns an illusory problem--a problem that is a reflection of the true problem, which is that the world is largely controlled by a corporate oligarchy. The Orwell analogies are good, but the best analogy is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.