There are so many posers that people forget the real thing exists. That was a general dressing down senior staff for failure as the casualty reports flood in.
If you say something that offends someone it's the prosecutor's discretion whether or not you're charged,but if he does bring them you'll still be convicted because the law still stands. You're granted permission to say unpopular things by the government, and a government official decides what's unpopular, and he can get convictions for ridiculous things.
The prosecutor is only asked to consider whether it's "likely to be in the public interest" to bring charges. Thank God prosecutors in western nations have no history of bringing politically-motivated charges, charging disfavored people on whim or request or for political advantage with trumped-up offenses, otherwise this setup would be an open invitation to the worst kinds of abuse.
You know, I've gotten used to anti-language screeds being the frustration of the ignorant and lazy compounded with childish exaggerations and intemperance even I boggle at.
But.... wow. Just wow. NULL < -1 && NULL == 0? "0133" == "133" because of implicit string-to-numeric conversions, but 0133 != 133? And the ?: implementation just leaves those examples in the dust.
I had an awful tl;dr reply but it hit me this morning what was driving my insistence: I'm arguing above that the crimes your policy will enable are worse than anything it prevents. Yes, it sucks, and yes, it's "no practical alternative", and I'm not sure what the nerd view you're referring to is but whatever: the existence of slackwitted supporters or detractors doesn't have anything to do with a policy's real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good..
You either believe you should have to meet criminal standards of evidence to take something offline or you don't. There's nothing magical about the site serving a web page, forcing what I publish offline is treating me like a criminal whether or not you also confiscate a two-dollar domain name and maybe a few hundred dollars worth of hardware offline with it. Google has absolutely nothing to do with the material you want censored being online, Google is in no sense its publisher, Google has no means of offering an effective defense of any arbitrary post's veracity or legality so even a wholly unsupported accusation, or an accusation based on any but blatantly forged evidence, would be enough to get you a default judgement censoring anything at all. That's what you're arguing for: censorship on accusation.
Your argument here is to pick two specific cases, one in which you personally couldn't be bothered to care whether you won or lost and another in which you decide for someone you don't know and have barely even heard of that he couldn't, and you're arguing from that that therefore it doesn't really matter whether anybody can hide anything from hundreds of millions of people on accusation.
Publishers collect and distribute articles they or their agents have personally selected and edited and put forth as specially noteworthy. When you say you should be able to sue Google, what you mean is you want to sue the paperboy for not cutting stories that make you look bad out of the papers he delivers.
Because after all, Google should be put in the position of deciding whether or not it's worth going to court to defend each and every thing anybody on the internet objects to having seen. That certainly seems fair and balanced to me.
So, you having to go halfway around the world for due process, so you and the accused can state your cases, is an unbearable imposition, and your solution is to force whomever anyone decides to accuse to come halfway around the world the other direction for exactly the same reason.
There's old idiom for what you want instituted, "kangaroo court" -- fairly delicious in context, I think.
Or did you not know the rules for judgement by default?
If a legal procedure properly has the authority to remove a post, it will be gone, and Google won't index it. Google indexing a post is prima facie evidence that no such proper legal procedure has been followed.
This case has established "proper legal procedure" in Australia. That "proper legal procedure", under discussion here, is exactly what I described. You're defending some fantasy that has exactly nothing to do with the concrete facts.
So, Google's supposed to disappear anything whose poster gets called any of an approved list of bad names?
Because that's what this amounts to: say the magic words and Google is supposed to presume what you say is true and what they say is false and you have the power to silence and they have no right to speak. Exactly who gave you or them the right to judge and have that judgement enforced by law?
Good God how did this get modded up. That is one of its fortes: absolute-as-absolute-gets certainty that your history is correct and complete and signed off by whatever parties you deep proper, with a mechanism so simple and straightforward anyone you'd trust to be an auditor could understand it.
Actually I think he was dead on target about the need to keep the hordes away from critical code.
The irony I see is in how complicated people make git seem by not religiously focusing on its core, only using the higher-level abstractions and conveniences to add lasting value, when really do eliminate endless petty little error-prone tasks now or in the future -- say with a straight face that the need for rerere is any less abstruse or rare than for template name binding or partial specialization, I dare you:-)
You have complete control over what goes into your repository. Off the top of my head, I'd have a repository for submitters to push to and another one only you have write access to, into which you can pull anything you want and which you can all agree to call the "official" repository of approved commits.
Nowhere is it written developer branches must be pushed anywhere. What goes on in their own repos is really nobody else's business, because see above: nobody has to take or keep anything they don't want. Do take the time to learn how the object db, blobs and trees and commits, is structured, and the thumbs into that db. If you're like me, once you see it you'll have the itch to dink with the innards with shell commands just because it's so ridiculously easy. Build from there until you understand the low-level commands, and after that you'll see all the rest as merely conveniences for common tasks, which is what they are. For my money, any other route to understanding git is like trying to learn math without understanding equality.
cloning a repository from somewhere else, isn't even covered until Chapter 12, because understanding what cloning really means requires so much background
That's... that's... just... what?
Cloning is part of the brutally simple (and amazingly flexible) guts of git. Given Linus's hatred of C++ I think what git has become is deliciously ironic, but the basics could not be easier to understand.
Unless I'm missing something, the premise here is that felony monopolization is a fig leaf for not bribing bureaucrats.
Extortion, vandalism, making contracts with the intent of breaking them, none of these constitute crimes or even happened in this world you're painting for us, is that it?
That's one sentence from paragraph 328 of the document detailing their crimes. Them demanding exclusion and degraded functionality for a perceived threat to their market presence is nothing new, it'd fit right in with that document and with the cynics' view of their character -- and "felon" is unquestionably a characterization. Outside the courtroom it's a simple matter of perception. Legally, of course, it's an absolutely correct description of the corporation as a whole.
A large part of NTP's sophistication lies in its ability to identify falsetickers/truechimers among multiple candidate sources. NTP is built to survive failures like this, but Microsoft apparently doesn't bother telling its Active Directory customers -- it actually instructs them to single-source their clocks.
That disconnect isn't just "our" perception of how the right wing thinks. This statement (attributed to Karl Rove, I think universally) was not delivered in a casual context, not responding to a shouted question, it was a sit-down lengthy interview with a New York Times reporter.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
The contempt and (by us liberals' standards) insanity he displays is open, intentional and utter. Regardless, his meltdown on election night and the right wing's complete bafflement at their failure fit that picture exactly. That's Rove was revealing how right-wingers think the world works. That's Romney thinking he can lie with every word out of his mouth. That's their pollsters looking at hard data thinking they can change the results by denying them. That's their voters, who really do think believing what they're told and repeating it loud enough is magic that makes it true.
There's a large part of the GOP who think they're not completely sucked in to this mindset, who think they're just being practical by cultivating that vote, who imagine themselves, without the least sense of irony, creators.
That's not my word for what they think, it's theirs.
Wait... in a story about _Gabe Newell_ saying Linux is better than Win8 for gaming, you're saying that will never happen? Just exactly whose perceptiveness and access to information would you accept as credible?
The author specifically worries that people will buy without knowing they could get it free. There's no reason to worry at all about the ones happy to pay regardless, so the specific worry only about people for whom spending money = sacrifice isn't just legitimate it's the only sensible concern.
Slashdot Mirror
There are so many posers that people forget the real thing exists. That was a general dressing down senior staff for failure as the casualty reports flood in.
If you say something that offends someone it's the prosecutor's discretion whether or not you're charged,but if he does bring them you'll still be convicted because the law still stands. You're granted permission to say unpopular things by the government, and a government official decides what's unpopular, and he can get convictions for ridiculous things.
The prosecutor is only asked to consider whether it's "likely to be in the public interest" to bring charges. Thank God prosecutors in western nations have no history of bringing politically-motivated charges, charging disfavored people on whim or request or for political advantage with trumped-up offenses, otherwise this setup would be an open invitation to the worst kinds of abuse.
Just pointing out the difference between what goes on in a private location and whether or not it happens to be directly connected to a public one.
You know, I've gotten used to anti-language screeds being the frustration of the ignorant and lazy compounded with childish exaggerations and intemperance even I boggle at.
But .... wow. Just wow. NULL < -1 && NULL == 0? "0133" == "133" because of implicit string-to-numeric conversions, but 0133 != 133? And the ? : implementation just leaves those examples in the dust.
A modern computer is crippled without a connection to the internet
And a modern bathroom is crippled without a connection to the main retail area.
I had an awful tl;dr reply but it hit me this morning what was driving my insistence: I'm arguing above that the crimes your policy will enable are worse than anything it prevents. Yes, it sucks, and yes, it's "no practical alternative", and I'm not sure what the nerd view you're referring to is but whatever: the existence of slackwitted supporters or detractors doesn't have anything to do with a policy's real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good..
You either believe you should have to meet criminal standards of evidence to take something offline or you don't. There's nothing magical about the site serving a web page, forcing what I publish offline is treating me like a criminal whether or not you also confiscate a two-dollar domain name and maybe a few hundred dollars worth of hardware offline with it. Google has absolutely nothing to do with the material you want censored being online, Google is in no sense its publisher, Google has no means of offering an effective defense of any arbitrary post's veracity or legality so even a wholly unsupported accusation, or an accusation based on any but blatantly forged evidence, would be enough to get you a default judgement censoring anything at all. That's what you're arguing for: censorship on accusation.
I can hardly wait.
Your argument here is to pick two specific cases, one in which you personally couldn't be bothered to care whether you won or lost and another in which you decide for someone you don't know and have barely even heard of that he couldn't, and you're arguing from that that therefore it doesn't really matter whether anybody can hide anything from hundreds of millions of people on accusation.
Publishers collect and distribute articles they or their agents have personally selected and edited and put forth as specially noteworthy. When you say you should be able to sue Google, what you mean is you want to sue the paperboy for not cutting stories that make you look bad out of the papers he delivers.
Because after all, Google should be put in the position of deciding whether or not it's worth going to court to defend each and every thing anybody on the internet objects to having seen. That certainly seems fair and balanced to me.
So, you having to go halfway around the world for due process, so you and the accused can state your cases, is an unbearable imposition, and your solution is to force whomever anyone decides to accuse to come halfway around the world the other direction for exactly the same reason.
There's old idiom for what you want instituted, "kangaroo court" -- fairly delicious in context, I think. Or did you not know the rules for judgement by default?
Well, I dunno, I just got FTL and it's got that MOO feel to it at least at the start. We don't need no steenking candy.
If a legal procedure properly has the authority to remove a post, it will be gone, and Google won't index it. Google indexing a post is prima facie evidence that no such proper legal procedure has been followed.
This case has established "proper legal procedure" in Australia. That "proper legal procedure", under discussion here, is exactly what I described. You're defending some fantasy that has exactly nothing to do with the concrete facts.
So, Google's supposed to disappear anything whose poster gets called any of an approved list of bad names?
Because that's what this amounts to: say the magic words and Google is supposed to presume what you say is true and what they say is false and you have the power to silence and they have no right to speak. Exactly who gave you or them the right to judge and have that judgement enforced by law?
Missing some part of the paperwork isn't enough here, either. It has to be on the order of outright lying to get a warrant or some such.
clear history/ audit trail
Good God how did this get modded up. That is one of its fortes: absolute-as-absolute-gets certainty that your history is correct and complete and signed off by whatever parties you deep proper, with a mechanism so simple and straightforward anyone you'd trust to be an auditor could understand it.
Actually I think he was dead on target about the need to keep the hordes away from critical code.
The irony I see is in how complicated people make git seem by not religiously focusing on its core, only using the higher-level abstractions and conveniences to add lasting value, when really do eliminate endless petty little error-prone tasks now or in the future -- say with a straight face that the need for rerere is any less abstruse or rare than for template name binding or partial specialization, I dare you :-)
You have complete control over what goes into your repository. Off the top of my head, I'd have a repository for submitters to push to and another one only you have write access to, into which you can pull anything you want and which you can all agree to call the "official" repository of approved commits.
Nowhere is it written developer branches must be pushed anywhere. What goes on in their own repos is really nobody else's business, because see above: nobody has to take or keep anything they don't want. Do take the time to learn how the object db, blobs and trees and commits, is structured, and the thumbs into that db. If you're like me, once you see it you'll have the itch to dink with the innards with shell commands just because it's so ridiculously easy. Build from there until you understand the low-level commands, and after that you'll see all the rest as merely conveniences for common tasks, which is what they are. For my money, any other route to understanding git is like trying to learn math without understanding equality.
cloning a repository from somewhere else, isn't even covered until Chapter 12, because understanding what cloning really means requires so much background
That's ... that's ... just ... what?
Cloning is part of the brutally simple (and amazingly flexible) guts of git. Given Linus's hatred of C++ I think what git has become is deliciously ironic, but the basics could not be easier to understand.
And that's the trouble with bitcoin: it's deflationary.
Unless I'm missing something, the premise here is that felony monopolization is a fig leaf for not bribing bureaucrats.
Extortion, vandalism, making contracts with the intent of breaking them, none of these constitute crimes or even happened in this world you're painting for us, is that it?
Finally, Microsoft went beyond encouraging ICPs to take advantage of innovations in Microsoft's technology, explicitly requiring them to ensure that their content appeared degraded when viewed with Navigator rather than Internet Explorer.
That's one sentence from paragraph 328 of the document detailing their crimes. Them demanding exclusion and degraded functionality for a perceived threat to their market presence is nothing new, it'd fit right in with that document and with the cynics' view of their character -- and "felon" is unquestionably a characterization. Outside the courtroom it's a simple matter of perception. Legally, of course, it's an absolutely correct description of the corporation as a whole.
A large part of NTP's sophistication lies in its ability to identify falsetickers/truechimers among multiple candidate sources. NTP is built to survive failures like this, but Microsoft apparently doesn't bother telling its Active Directory customers -- it actually instructs them to single-source their clocks.
That disconnect isn't just "our" perception of how the right wing thinks. This statement (attributed to Karl Rove, I think universally) was not delivered in a casual context, not responding to a shouted question, it was a sit-down lengthy interview with a New York Times reporter.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
The contempt and (by us liberals' standards) insanity he displays is open, intentional and utter. Regardless, his meltdown on election night and the right wing's complete bafflement at their failure fit that picture exactly. That's Rove was revealing how right-wingers think the world works. That's Romney thinking he can lie with every word out of his mouth. That's their pollsters looking at hard data thinking they can change the results by denying them. That's their voters, who really do think believing what they're told and repeating it loud enough is magic that makes it true.
There's a large part of the GOP who think they're not completely sucked in to this mindset, who think they're just being practical by cultivating that vote, who imagine themselves, without the least sense of irony, creators.
That's not my word for what they think, it's theirs.
Wait ... in a story about _Gabe Newell_ saying Linux is better than Win8 for gaming, you're saying that will never happen? Just exactly whose perceptiveness and access to information would you accept as credible?
The author specifically worries that people will buy without knowing they could get it free. There's no reason to worry at all about the ones happy to pay regardless, so the specific worry only about people for whom spending money = sacrifice isn't just legitimate it's the only sensible concern.