I don't understand why forcing you to leave is crossing the line, sorry - as long as the "force" is simply refusing to work with you. The language is off: to use a car analogy, because/. seems to find them funny, it's like saying I'm "forcing" you not to use my car just because I won't give you the keys. In fact, I have the privilege to simply not give you the keys - it's my car!
Any democracy will end up creating compromises which don't please the minority. The union is a trade-off, where the workers enjoy power in numbers, but some workers will sometimes lose out short term on some things. Overall, the labour movement has benefitted workers. As with any power structure, Churchill's maxim still applies: it is the worst, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
If you think the difference between imperative programming languages goes much beyond syntactic sugar then I don't think you really understand computer science.
You know a sophomore when they start whining about how childish Visual Basic is. If you can write something well, you can write it well in VB. You might prefer not to, but you should be able to do a fine job of it.
1. Everything is politics. Just by existing, a union is being political; 2. Freedom of assembly MUST mean that employees have a right to agree not to work with someone who isn't in the union - otherwise it isn't freedom of assembly; 3. Nobody can force you to strike. But the rest of the workforce can refuse to work with those who won't take part in an agreed strike. Again, freedom of assembly.
You can't say, "I agree with unions except to the extent that they decide to do stuff I don't like." It's not up to you. They're choosing to assemble freely, and will do so as they please.
My experience with ISP administration, like my father's experience as a Telefonica engineer, is that you don't have to be a genius to have a very substantial level of technical responsibility - but you do have to be one of the lads.
And that means you're very chummy and utterly loyal to the environment around you. Your god-like powers give you god-like beliefs, especially over your ability to monitor the behaviour of others. After all, you have so much responsibility and so much control, which means you must know best, right?
It's not a necessary consequence, but it provides another reason for associating shaven body with "little girl" other than "'E'S A PAEDO GET 'IM!" It takes a good dose of arrogance to believe that millennia of culture are suddenly irrelevant, even if other interests are at work (e.g. profit motive).
Man has been obsessed for most of recorded history with the idea of female virginity and symbolism around a woman's "purity", desiring to impose and then conquer "innocence". The "little girl" is the archetypal innocent female. Understanding the connection doesn't mean you want little girls, because it doesn't say that you are attracted to prepubescent bodies.
Now I do think it's weird that so many people are turned off by one particular secondary sexual characteristic, but that's the power of marketing. The US cuts the end off guy's cocks, rips the end out of cats' digits, and takes the hair off everyone's bodies - except on the head, where it still mustn't be too long unless you're Jesus. It also has a pathological fear of breasts. Odd country.
Because when you're a real business paying real employees, the cost of an Office licence is so insurmountably high that you're going to choose a third-best option.
Every minute spent on fanboy navel-gazing is a minute not spent working optimally using the most fully featured, familiar productivity suite. And that means less money. And that's not worth it.
I don't mean to piss on your parade, but this hair-removal tradition started thousands of years ago precisely to look like a young innocent virgin. It reprised in the '80s when businessmen realised that you can make a lot of money telling people that YOU ALL LOOK AWFUL THE WAY YOU WERE MADE AND MUST MODIFY YOURSELF SO BUY OUR PRODUCT.
But I admit that I don't think "little" girl when I see "shaved all over". Instead, I suspect (and usually find) low self-esteem - just like when I find someone is circumcised.
3. Remember that executive salaries are so high because golfing buddies sit on each others' boards and set their wages. It's not about what you do but who you golf with;
4. If you really want to start this arms race, you'll lose.
OK, I just read through this thread, and I see I've repeated myself enough times.
I certainly don't think you're dull, so I am going to guesstimate that you're angry as you feel an injustice has been done but aren't clear how to frame your objection, which is fair enough. I'm closing the tab with this thread now, so ta ta.
Why use hyperbolic language about the 4th Amendment being inconvenient when the issue is merely how to interpret evidence relevant to it?
If you whine that the sky is falling when anything happens which you personally don't like, you destroy the power of your own speech. It is a loud warning klaxon to immaturity when someone is incapable grasping nuance.
There are some flagrant violations of the 4th Amendment going on in the US right now, many of which have been covered on Slashdot - this is not one of them.
Which in turn depends on how you define "freedom" and "safety".
To the claimant, this guy has interfered with their freedom by doing one or more of stealing, lying or breaking a contract of employment.
To me, property is society's convenient method for resource allocation, a government-imposed restriction on the freedom which would otherwise exist. So taking property as evidence has nothing to do with freedom, but simply reflects a caveat to the normal rules in the interest of just society.
I think the judge should probably do a five second search.
Search of what, precisely? "Oh it says on Google - which I always use for making legal decisions - that 'hacker' can sometimes just mean someone who likes to tinker with software innocently. But hm, he could also be a 'black-hat hacker'... that fits in with what most of the world understands the term to mean. Is he a good or a bad hacker? Decisions, decisions. I know! I could ask him.. but no, that'll tip him off! I know: I could ask Slashdot. They always have a good understanding of reality."
Yeah, I get that you disagree with it, and it's not obvious that the judge made the right decision - but it's also pretty easy to see why he made it. And it has nothing to do with "tyranny" or whatever it is angry geeks like to hyperbolise with: it's because it was judged that there was a danger that evidence would be destroyed.
Err, his equipment hasn't been seized simply because he announced himself to be (as the judge understood it) a criminal who damages computer equipment. This was the tipping point for deciding whether the guy was likely to damage computer equipment which would also be evidence in in an on-going case.
And, yes, a great deal of criminals simply confess. This has become a sticking point for those who argue that juries are a soft touch in England&Wales - proportion of guilty pleas hover around 73% in Crown court vs 67% in magistrate's.
You think it's not reasonable that a police officer or judge will view you with suspicion if you tell them that you're a murderer/rapist/thief/fraudster/cracker/whatever? How would a criminal justice system work in your utopia?
"When I said that I like to rape and will not stop raping, I meant in a computer game. How dare you assume that I actually meant real raping!!! Fuck you and your normal everyday use of language."
Trying to be a smartass with a judge gets you in the same place as any other person who tries to be a smartass with a judge.
No, but it arouses reasonable suspicion regarding intent and means: "thief", like "hacker", can be interpreted as a(n a)vocation - particularly in the context of "I am a thief/hacker" (on-going) distinct from "I stole/hacked something" (one-off).
Maybe I'm looking at it like someone with legal training. All I can say here is: it is good to have a lawyer. Words have meanings, and they'll not be interpreted the way YOU want them to be interpreted. If in doubt, keep your mouth shut.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why forcing you to leave is crossing the line, sorry - as long as the "force" is simply refusing to work with you. The language is off: to use a car analogy, because /. seems to find them funny, it's like saying I'm "forcing" you not to use my car just because I won't give you the keys. In fact, I have the privilege to simply not give you the keys - it's my car!
Any democracy will end up creating compromises which don't please the minority. The union is a trade-off, where the workers enjoy power in numbers, but some workers will sometimes lose out short term on some things. Overall, the labour movement has benefitted workers. As with any power structure, Churchill's maxim still applies: it is the worst, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
If you think the difference between imperative programming languages goes much beyond syntactic sugar then I don't think you really understand computer science.
You know a sophomore when they start whining about how childish Visual Basic is. If you can write something well, you can write it well in VB. You might prefer not to, but you should be able to do a fine job of it.
1. Everything is politics. Just by existing, a union is being political;
2. Freedom of assembly MUST mean that employees have a right to agree not to work with someone who isn't in the union - otherwise it isn't freedom of assembly;
3. Nobody can force you to strike. But the rest of the workforce can refuse to work with those who won't take part in an agreed strike. Again, freedom of assembly.
You can't say, "I agree with unions except to the extent that they decide to do stuff I don't like." It's not up to you. They're choosing to assemble freely, and will do so as they please.
My experience with ISP administration, like my father's experience as a Telefonica engineer, is that you don't have to be a genius to have a very substantial level of technical responsibility - but you do have to be one of the lads.
And that means you're very chummy and utterly loyal to the environment around you. Your god-like powers give you god-like beliefs, especially over your ability to monitor the behaviour of others. After all, you have so much responsibility and so much control, which means you must know best, right?
It's not a necessary consequence, but it provides another reason for associating shaven body with "little girl" other than "'E'S A PAEDO GET 'IM!" It takes a good dose of arrogance to believe that millennia of culture are suddenly irrelevant, even if other interests are at work (e.g. profit motive).
Man has been obsessed for most of recorded history with the idea of female virginity and symbolism around a woman's "purity", desiring to impose and then conquer "innocence". The "little girl" is the archetypal innocent female. Understanding the connection doesn't mean you want little girls, because it doesn't say that you are attracted to prepubescent bodies.
Now I do think it's weird that so many people are turned off by one particular secondary sexual characteristic, but that's the power of marketing. The US cuts the end off guy's cocks, rips the end out of cats' digits, and takes the hair off everyone's bodies - except on the head, where it still mustn't be too long unless you're Jesus. It also has a pathological fear of breasts. Odd country.
Whatever the means, the end is the same.
And it would be an oversimplification of psychology to regard the following of a very strong fashion as a "decision".
Indeed.
The human mind's greatest privilege is not having to reveal how it's working.
Because single-minded buffoons who have immense skills in one area but no skills elsewhere are suckers for this sort of thing.
And that's just the sort of person big businesses/government (but I repeat myself) want for grunt work.
Exactly. The worst mistake America is making right now is thinking that it's "private sector vs public sector".
It's usually "public sector and private sector vs you".
Because when you're a real business paying real employees, the cost of an Office licence is so insurmountably high that you're going to choose a third-best option.
Every minute spent on fanboy navel-gazing is a minute not spent working optimally using the most fully featured, familiar productivity suite. And that means less money. And that's not worth it.
I don't mean to piss on your parade, but this hair-removal tradition started thousands of years ago precisely to look like a young innocent virgin. It reprised in the '80s when businessmen realised that you can make a lot of money telling people that YOU ALL LOOK AWFUL THE WAY YOU WERE MADE AND MUST MODIFY YOURSELF SO BUY OUR PRODUCT.
But I admit that I don't think "little" girl when I see "shaved all over". Instead, I suspect (and usually find) low self-esteem - just like when I find someone is circumcised.
1. These aren't one-off payments;
2. This is just the amount declared;
3. Remember that executive salaries are so high because golfing buddies sit on each others' boards and set their wages. It's not about what you do but who you golf with;
4. If you really want to start this arms race, you'll lose.
Don't play the game - change the rules.
Think of how much worse things would end up under libertarianism, which starts with a strong power vacuum.
tl;dr productive businesses are less vulnerable to reasonable legislation.
Couldn't agree more.
Indeed.
OK, I just read through this thread, and I see I've repeated myself enough times.
I certainly don't think you're dull, so I am going to guesstimate that you're angry as you feel an injustice has been done but aren't clear how to frame your objection, which is fair enough. I'm closing the tab with this thread now, so ta ta.
Why use hyperbolic language about the 4th Amendment being inconvenient when the issue is merely how to interpret evidence relevant to it?
If you whine that the sky is falling when anything happens which you personally don't like, you destroy the power of your own speech. It is a loud warning klaxon to immaturity when someone is incapable grasping nuance.
There are some flagrant violations of the 4th Amendment going on in the US right now, many of which have been covered on Slashdot - this is not one of them.
You're disputing the applicability of "probable cause", you know this?
Which in turn depends on how you define "freedom" and "safety".
To the claimant, this guy has interfered with their freedom by doing one or more of stealing, lying or breaking a contract of employment.
To me, property is society's convenient method for resource allocation, a government-imposed restriction on the freedom which would otherwise exist. So taking property as evidence has nothing to do with freedom, but simply reflects a caveat to the normal rules in the interest of just society.
I think the judge should probably do a five second search.
Search of what, precisely? "Oh it says on Google - which I always use for making legal decisions - that 'hacker' can sometimes just mean someone who likes to tinker with software innocently. But hm, he could also be a 'black-hat hacker'... that fits in with what most of the world understands the term to mean. Is he a good or a bad hacker? Decisions, decisions. I know! I could ask him.. but no, that'll tip him off! I know: I could ask Slashdot. They always have a good understanding of reality."
Yeah, I get that you disagree with it, and it's not obvious that the judge made the right decision - but it's also pretty easy to see why he made it. And it has nothing to do with "tyranny" or whatever it is angry geeks like to hyperbolise with: it's because it was judged that there was a danger that evidence would be destroyed.
Err, his equipment hasn't been seized simply because he announced himself to be (as the judge understood it) a criminal who damages computer equipment. This was the tipping point for deciding whether the guy was likely to damage computer equipment which would also be evidence in in an on-going case.
And, yes, a great deal of criminals simply confess. This has become a sticking point for those who argue that juries are a soft touch in England&Wales - proportion of guilty pleas hover around 73% in Crown court vs 67% in magistrate's.
You think it's not reasonable that a police officer or judge will view you with suspicion if you tell them that you're a murderer/rapist/thief/fraudster/cracker/whatever? How would a criminal justice system work in your utopia?
"When I said that I like to rape and will not stop raping, I meant in a computer game. How dare you assume that I actually meant real raping!!! Fuck you and your normal everyday use of language."
Trying to be a smartass with a judge gets you in the same place as any other person who tries to be a smartass with a judge.
No, but it arouses reasonable suspicion regarding intent and means: "thief", like "hacker", can be interpreted as a(n a)vocation - particularly in the context of "I am a thief/hacker" (on-going) distinct from "I stole/hacked something" (one-off).
Maybe I'm looking at it like someone with legal training. All I can say here is: it is good to have a lawyer. Words have meanings, and they'll not be interpreted the way YOU want them to be interpreted. If in doubt, keep your mouth shut.
It's not about having been a thief, but about calling yourself a thief. That's suspicious.