This is a good thing, and it's long overdue. Linux should do the same.
It's actually pretty easy to get Lua running in the kernel and call kernel APIs; but to make it really useful, it needs additional kernel hooks and callbacks, and that requires cooperation from the core kernel developers.
ome have blithely said Aaron should just have taken a deal. This is callous. There was great practical risk to Aaron from pleading to any felony
The risk arose because he committed a felony under to the CFAA. After that, everything was a gamble. Why do you expect the prosecutor not to prosecute him under the law when he clearly violated the law?
After which he would check the box stating he has been convicted of a felony on every job application he ever fills out.
Yes, that's the consequence of committing a felony. And there is little doubt that he committed a felony.
His best bet at future employment would be cutting up old asbestos in some scrap yard somewhere for less than minimum wage under the table.
Plenty of felons convicted due to Internet-related crimes have excellent careers in security, writing books, as entrepreneurs, or in academia. Just because the only job you can imagine is that of a wage slave doesn't mean that was the future he faced.
All because he violated a TOS?
No, because he violated the CFAA: he illegally connected to a private computer network and attempted to use that access in order to commit another crime. That has nothing to do with "TOS". Go read the indictment.
"breaking into" is a physical analogy which doesn't work in this case
I'm not making a physical analogy. If you don't know what the informal term "break into a computer network" means, just look at the indictment and the CFAA. Swartz met the conditions of that act.
if there were forced entry it would just be a B&E charge which, as we all know, gets a slap on the wrist for a first offense. Probably just probation and no jail time. At worst a few months in a minimum security jail
And, in fact, Swartz was facing nothing worse. He could have avoided trial by pleading guilty and gotten six months in minimum security jail, or he could have gone through with the trial and probably received a lower sentence or even just probation.
Swartz was prosecuted for what he actually did: he broke into MIT's computer network via a physical connection and caused their system managers several days of headaches.
In terms of cost and hassle to MIT, that's probably the equivalent of physically stealing a few laptops. What do you think should the penalty for that be?
But then he gets not prosecuted for stealing scientific articles
Neither did Swartz. Swartz got prosecuted for physically breaking into a computer network on private property without authorization; that's pretty serious no matter how you look at it. A court might have decided there were extenuating circumstances, but that's for a court to decide, not the prosecutor.
And even in the worst case, Swartz would have faced only about a year in prison under federal sentencing guidelines, since the maximum prison term is related to damages caused (in this case, mostly MIT's and JSTOR's wasted time).
Not all crimes get harsher penalties. Rape & murder get a comparative slap on the wrist these days.
People's lives have no value but cost someone money (even imaginary income) and they throw the book at you.
Swartz was facing a maximum (!) of about a year of prison under federal sentencing guidelines, had been offered a plea bargain of six months, and probably would have been sentenced to even less given his background and stellar law team.
The average prison sentence for rape in the US is about 11.8 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape).
But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
He is attempting to use eminent domain rather than buy something on the open market. This is absolutely the opposite of the principles he espouses. There is no doubt he is a hypocrite.
Ron Paul went to WIPO to assert ownership over something that the law says he owns. WIPO is the legal authority that makes this determination. Libertarians have no problem with people asserting property rights. Even if Ron Paul believed that this property right or this particular legal authority shouldn't exist, as long as it does, it's the proper place to assert his rights.
Just because you have completely wrong ideas of what libertarianism is about doesn't make him a hypocrite. And I suggest you look up "eminent domain" if you don't want to keep sounding like a complete moron.
Yup. The same mechanisms operate in Canada and other nations.
Second, and this is critical, they can pass any laws they want, but that doesn't mean they're legal. The fact is that warrantless wiretapping in Canada is unlawful NO MATTER WHAT NEW LAWS THEY PASS.
Obama being judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens is illegal according to the Constitution. Bush's program of torture was illegal according to the Constitution. So, good luck with that argument.
Mouse testing is cheap and easy. Even if it doesn't work half the time and differs significantly from human reactions, it's still worth doing because you learn quite a bit from it. The only thing that would be unfortunate is if you reject a safe and effective drug prematurely based on a mouse model, but I'd guess that's pretty rare.
Let's say you rob me at gunpoint and take my money and I say "what you are doing is wrong". Later, you come back and offer to give me back 50% of what you stole. Am I a hypocrite for taking back that money? Of course not. The fact that you give me some of my money back doesn't change the fact that you're a robber, and it doesn't obligate me to stop calling you a robber.
Well, that's roughly how Social Security and Medicare work. I myself certainly intend to take every penny I can get out of them. The government may force me to take a lousy deal, but at least I want the maximum back that I can get. That doesn't change the fact that it is "robbery". Your mistake is in thinking of it as a "gift" or "benefit".
People arguing against social security are saying: "I want to take this money and invest it myself because I'm getting a bad deal from the government". That is what "doing without social security" means. But after I'm forced to pay for social security, the money is gone; I can't use it to do what I argue people should do instead of social security, namely invest it in safer and better assets.
I am forced to partake in Obamacare and social security; "partaking" means primarily paying for an inefficient service. There is nothing whatsoever inconsistent about taking advantage of the (poor) service that I have already been forced to pay for. Demanding that I don't use services I was forced to pay for is totally unreasonable, and it's a sleazy debate tactic by people trying to defend imposition of costly and inefficient government services. By analogy, the same is true for UN, WTO, patents, and copyrights: people "pay for" the existence of those organizations and restrictions (because they are subject to them), so they can take advantage of them while still arguing against them without being inconsistent.
One of the clearest example of that is the GNU GPL, which uses copyright and licenses to undermine the current system of copyrights and licenses.
But by taking those benefits, you can no longer argue that those who do take advantage of said benefits are a drain on our society without being a drain yourself.
Of course you can consistently argue that. First of all, the benefits can be "a drain" in the sense that, even though they are full paid for by the people receiving them, it would have been economically better for the country if they had been provided in some other way. Another sense in which some people taking advantage of benefits can be "a drain" while others need not be is if some people get a below market rate deal while others pay more than market rate.
She paid for those benefits with her taxes, why shouldn't she take advantage of them? I don't see any hypocrisy there. She is still justified in arguing that she got a bad deal.
Ditto with Ron Paul. As long as the UN exists (or other such organizations), he is perfectly justified in using them. After all, he could be a target of the organization, so he might as well take advantage of it. That isn't inconsistent with wanting to get rid of it.
Please point me to some citations on this. All the information I can find says that the rate of molestations are near identical to every other profession in which exposure to children is part of it.
Yes, but other professions don't proclaim that they they are the keepers of ultimate moral truth, received directly from God, and exercised with special supernatural dispensation from God.
If rates of molestation in the Catholic church are the same as in other professions involving children, that alone tells you that Catholic claims on morality are a sham and a lie.
A lot of these bad bills just keep coming back until they get passed in some form. And if they can't be passed domestically, its provisions may simply be included in some international agreement, trying to force Congress' hand. Or, alternatively, the president may try to get most provisions passed through executive order or regulatory powers.
Of course, many people are rather inconsistent in how they feel about this. If this is about a cause they favor, they applaud such underhanded tactics; if it's about a cause they disfavor, they complain about "lobbyists" and "the end of democracy".
Broken batteries, incompatibilities with older iOS hardware/software, lack of accessories for older hardware due to Apple's proprietary connectors, etc.
What imposed limitations are you refering to that have expensive workarounds?
Lack of access to the file system, prohibition or limitation of competing services on iOS, lack of scriptability/programmability
What content magically becomes unusable if you don't purchase new apple hardware?
Well, if the old hardware stops being usable, all Apple content.
Both the Pro and the RT were sitting next to each other. The tablets themselves seemed uncomfortably hard-edged, bulky, and heavy. The keyboard covers were nice and surprisingly easy to type on. The UIs were a nightmare, going to some desktop-like thing for many apps. The Windows app store was mostly junk. I think a common use of this is for Powerpoint presentations, but the external screen connector was apparently something proprietary, requiring expensive and proprietary dongles. Try as I might, I couldn't come up with a good reason to buy one; given my dislike for iOS, I was really hoping Microsoft would have managed to create a viable competitor.
You're trying to set this up as an "us vs them", but it really isn't. We're not all sitting here saying "haha, look at those Android fools,
I'm not "trying to set this up" as anything. I was responding to your dumb comment of "I know, paying for things that people make might be alien to you". Paying for things is not alien to me or other Android users, but that doesn't mean that we want to pay when we don't have to.
Furthermore, I am a long-time iOS user. I stopped buying new Apple devices and content because it became too damned expensive. It's not the apps that are expensive (although you do end up paying a bit more), it's the "ecosystem": Apple's forced upgrades, the overpriced hardware, the imposed limitations that force you to buy expensive workarounds, and most of all, the fact that you can't use your content unless you keep buying Apple's overpriced hardware.
The fracking industry, like any other industry, wants to maximize profit. It is the responsibility of the branches of government to direct that profit motive into useful directions.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good thing, and it's long overdue. Linux should do the same.
It's actually pretty easy to get Lua running in the kernel and call kernel APIs; but to make it really useful, it needs additional kernel hooks and callbacks, and that requires cooperation from the core kernel developers.
The risk arose because he committed a felony under to the CFAA. After that, everything was a gamble. Why do you expect the prosecutor not to prosecute him under the law when he clearly violated the law?
Yes. So why don't you actually start using facts instead of fabricating your evidence.
Yes, that's the consequence of committing a felony. And there is little doubt that he committed a felony.
Plenty of felons convicted due to Internet-related crimes have excellent careers in security, writing books, as entrepreneurs, or in academia. Just because the only job you can imagine is that of a wage slave doesn't mean that was the future he faced.
No, because he violated the CFAA: he illegally connected to a private computer network and attempted to use that access in order to commit another crime. That has nothing to do with "TOS". Go read the indictment.
I'm not making a physical analogy. If you don't know what the informal term "break into a computer network" means, just look at the indictment and the CFAA. Swartz met the conditions of that act.
And, in fact, Swartz was facing nothing worse. He could have avoided trial by pleading guilty and gotten six months in minimum security jail, or he could have gone through with the trial and probably received a lower sentence or even just probation.
Swartz was prosecuted for what he actually did: he broke into MIT's computer network via a physical connection and caused their system managers several days of headaches.
In terms of cost and hassle to MIT, that's probably the equivalent of physically stealing a few laptops. What do you think should the penalty for that be?
He physically broke into a private computer network; that's the primary charge. And it's justifiably a pretty serious one.
Neither did Swartz. Swartz got prosecuted for physically breaking into a computer network on private property without authorization; that's pretty serious no matter how you look at it. A court might have decided there were extenuating circumstances, but that's for a court to decide, not the prosecutor.
And even in the worst case, Swartz would have faced only about a year in prison under federal sentencing guidelines, since the maximum prison term is related to damages caused (in this case, mostly MIT's and JSTOR's wasted time).
Swartz was facing a maximum (!) of about a year of prison under federal sentencing guidelines, had been offered a plea bargain of six months, and probably would have been sentenced to even less given his background and stellar law team.
The average prison sentence for rape in the US is about 11.8 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape).
But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Ron Paul went to WIPO to assert ownership over something that the law says he owns. WIPO is the legal authority that makes this determination. Libertarians have no problem with people asserting property rights. Even if Ron Paul believed that this property right or this particular legal authority shouldn't exist, as long as it does, it's the proper place to assert his rights.
Just because you have completely wrong ideas of what libertarianism is about doesn't make him a hypocrite. And I suggest you look up "eminent domain" if you don't want to keep sounding like a complete moron.
Yup. The same mechanisms operate in Canada and other nations.
Obama being judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens is illegal according to the Constitution. Bush's program of torture was illegal according to the Constitution. So, good luck with that argument.
Mouse testing is cheap and easy. Even if it doesn't work half the time and differs significantly from human reactions, it's still worth doing because you learn quite a bit from it. The only thing that would be unfortunate is if you reject a safe and effective drug prematurely based on a mouse model, but I'd guess that's pretty rare.
Let's say you rob me at gunpoint and take my money and I say "what you are doing is wrong". Later, you come back and offer to give me back 50% of what you stole. Am I a hypocrite for taking back that money? Of course not. The fact that you give me some of my money back doesn't change the fact that you're a robber, and it doesn't obligate me to stop calling you a robber.
Well, that's roughly how Social Security and Medicare work. I myself certainly intend to take every penny I can get out of them. The government may force me to take a lousy deal, but at least I want the maximum back that I can get. That doesn't change the fact that it is "robbery". Your mistake is in thinking of it as a "gift" or "benefit".
People arguing against social security are saying: "I want to take this money and invest it myself because I'm getting a bad deal from the government". That is what "doing without social security" means. But after I'm forced to pay for social security, the money is gone; I can't use it to do what I argue people should do instead of social security, namely invest it in safer and better assets.
I am forced to partake in Obamacare and social security; "partaking" means primarily paying for an inefficient service. There is nothing whatsoever inconsistent about taking advantage of the (poor) service that I have already been forced to pay for. Demanding that I don't use services I was forced to pay for is totally unreasonable, and it's a sleazy debate tactic by people trying to defend imposition of costly and inefficient government services. By analogy, the same is true for UN, WTO, patents, and copyrights: people "pay for" the existence of those organizations and restrictions (because they are subject to them), so they can take advantage of them while still arguing against them without being inconsistent.
One of the clearest example of that is the GNU GPL, which uses copyright and licenses to undermine the current system of copyrights and licenses.
Of course you can consistently argue that. First of all, the benefits can be "a drain" in the sense that, even though they are full paid for by the people receiving them, it would have been economically better for the country if they had been provided in some other way. Another sense in which some people taking advantage of benefits can be "a drain" while others need not be is if some people get a below market rate deal while others pay more than market rate.
She paid for those benefits with her taxes, why shouldn't she take advantage of them? I don't see any hypocrisy there. She is still justified in arguing that she got a bad deal.
Ditto with Ron Paul. As long as the UN exists (or other such organizations), he is perfectly justified in using them. After all, he could be a target of the organization, so he might as well take advantage of it. That isn't inconsistent with wanting to get rid of it.
Yes, but other professions don't proclaim that they they are the keepers of ultimate moral truth, received directly from God, and exercised with special supernatural dispensation from God.
If rates of molestation in the Catholic church are the same as in other professions involving children, that alone tells you that Catholic claims on morality are a sham and a lie.
A lot of these bad bills just keep coming back until they get passed in some form. And if they can't be passed domestically, its provisions may simply be included in some international agreement, trying to force Congress' hand. Or, alternatively, the president may try to get most provisions passed through executive order or regulatory powers.
Of course, many people are rather inconsistent in how they feel about this. If this is about a cause they favor, they applaud such underhanded tactics; if it's about a cause they disfavor, they complain about "lobbyists" and "the end of democracy".
You can erase your history completely if you change your name. Your new name (if well chosen) will have no Internet history associated with it.
Broken batteries, incompatibilities with older iOS hardware/software, lack of accessories for older hardware due to Apple's proprietary connectors, etc.
Lack of access to the file system, prohibition or limitation of competing services on iOS, lack of scriptability/programmability
Well, if the old hardware stops being usable, all Apple content.
That's the wrong question to ask.
Both the Pro and the RT were sitting next to each other. The tablets themselves seemed uncomfortably hard-edged, bulky, and heavy. The keyboard covers were nice and surprisingly easy to type on. The UIs were a nightmare, going to some desktop-like thing for many apps. The Windows app store was mostly junk. I think a common use of this is for Powerpoint presentations, but the external screen connector was apparently something proprietary, requiring expensive and proprietary dongles. Try as I might, I couldn't come up with a good reason to buy one; given my dislike for iOS, I was really hoping Microsoft would have managed to create a viable competitor.
Thumper_SVX claimed he was a showman, I was just responding to him.
I'm not "trying to set this up" as anything. I was responding to your dumb comment of "I know, paying for things that people make might be alien to you". Paying for things is not alien to me or other Android users, but that doesn't mean that we want to pay when we don't have to.
Furthermore, I am a long-time iOS user. I stopped buying new Apple devices and content because it became too damned expensive. It's not the apps that are expensive (although you do end up paying a bit more), it's the "ecosystem": Apple's forced upgrades, the overpriced hardware, the imposed limitations that force you to buy expensive workarounds, and most of all, the fact that you can't use your content unless you keep buying Apple's overpriced hardware.
The fracking industry, like any other industry, wants to maximize profit. It is the responsibility of the branches of government to direct that profit motive into useful directions.