The parent poster and I agree that those legal protections should not exist in the first place. Rather than extend them to another group, we seek to abolish those protections entirely.
Except he isn't. He's stating that they shouldn't be there, then stating that this is acceptable because it denies it only to a specific group.
Either everybody deserves it or nobody does. You don't say "oh we'll remove them from some people first, then maybe sometime in the future we'll remove it from everybody else."
Food laws were explicitly repealed in the new testament.
[citation needed]
But even if you're right, I thought that the Bible was the inerrant word of God? Delivered directly to publishers via his Holy Fax Machine (or whatever device He uses.)
If God is perfect, and God wrote the Old Testament, then the Old Testament must therefore still be in effect, right?
If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden. Read verse 22
I wonder how many of those "christians" support women's lib and emancipation? After all, allowing women a place of authority is explicitly forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Or how many of them shave? That's explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:27)
Or how many are bankers or moneylenders in general, as charging interest for a loan is explicitly forbidden too (Psalm 15:5)
Or how many wear shirts made of poly-cotton blends - any fabric made of two materials is explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:19, and Deuteronomy 22:11, although Deuteronomy only specifically mentions wool and linen.)
Why aren't they out lobbying for laws against these things too? Emancipation is *way* older than gay rights - seems like they should be focusing their efforts there, shouldn't they? Where is the petition to repeal the right for women to hold public office or hold a job?
They want marriage specifically for the legal protections that straight people already have: so they can force employers to provide health insurance, get estate rights when their partners die, tax breaks, etc.
There, fixed that for you.
Is there something so horrible about people wanting equal treatment under the law?
The problem is: Americans don't understand that they create their culture.
Culture is not something that is produced by a large company and then "consumed" by citizens. It is an aggregate interactive representation of a society's knowledge and values.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT BLAME OUR GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA! BLAME BROKEN HOMES AND CORPORATIONS!!
Considering that all of these things are made up of ordinary people, it sounds suspiciously like you are saying "BLAME EVERYONE BUT ME!"
I'm convinced that some companies deliberately post jobs that they have no intention to fill just so they can say they can't find qualified candidates in the US.
So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things
Or maybe have done all that before buying them... what the hell kind of mickey-mouse outfit would buy another company without examining their operations?
I really don't see why anyone would have assumed it was about free broadband for everyone.
It's the Libertardians who believe that anything a European has that they don't have must be provided by the evil, socialist government at gunpoint.
On another note, does anyone read this as a giant "Haista vittu and the m00se you rode in on!" to the **AA and their attempts to push the "three strikes" laws?
If something is a legal right, I imagine it would take (at the very least) conviction criminal court before it could be denied to you.
I can understand basic inalienable rights like food, shelter, clothing, and adequate healthcare. But a right to have internet access? I can only imagine what this will do to Finland's taxes.
Because having food, shelter and clothing declared as rights all mean increased taxes, right?
That's obvious - ads for beans.. because if you need your phone to do it for you, you're not producing enough gas!
On a related note, my three-year-old daughter absolutely loves it when someone around her farts, so I started the "pull my finger" bit with her.
The other day, she comes up to me and asks "Dad, I wanna pull your finger!" So I let her pull my finger, and when nothing happened, she looked quizzically at me and said "Hey! Where's the fart!?!?!"
Later she asked me to pull her finger, and when she didn't fart, she had the same reaction.. "Hey! Where's the fart!?!?!"
My wife is somewhat less than thrilled at the whole affair.
Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on
Oh bullshit.
Any "security" measure you can't rely on (in general) is not a security measure at all.
Obscurity is worse than no security at all, because it leads you to believe you're doing something when you're not. People have a tendency to form an emotional bond to the work they do. Obscurity tricks these people into believing their measures are effective, and thus when a threat presents itself, they have fooled themselves into believing their ineffective measures have some merit, and thus are less likely to respond in a timely manner.
Obscurity is not only not helpful, it's actually harmful to security.
They need to have some sort of sensor in-line with the radiation stream to audit the hardware and software output and confirm the human configurations are in line with expectations.
And what if it breaks between the "what is it emitting?" stage and the "OK, point it at the patient" stage?
Although there's really no reason that we need a : at all. We could have used a/.
http/slashdot.org
And how do you specify a document-relative URL then?
eg. Suppose in my HTML I have a directory called "http", and inside that a file called "example.com". How would the browser know that <a href="http/example.com"> should point to that file, and not the HTTP service on the server 'example.com'?
Or remove support for ports and use SRV records to find the port. Which would have saved us tons of work with named virtual hosts, and allowed us to run multiple SSL sites on the same IP
It would also have fucked up the ability to test servers by editing/etc/hosts, or created tons *more* work because you'd need to set up a new DNS server when you wanted to test it.
And just because SSL is broken because it doesn't allow you to specify parameters before the SSL connection is established is no reason to foist additional workload on us.
And asking me for my Mother's maiden name is really that much better? Or how about showing me an image that I picked out but will soon ignore after seeing that it never changes?
Those are both the same factor, just like a user's password.
Security factors are
something you know
something you have
something you are
In order to qualify as "two factor", you must have two of those (no, having two of the same factor doesn't count.)
So passwords, personal question, and favourite image are all examples of "something you know", and don't represent two-factor authentication.
The Security-token would be an example of "something you have", and thus combining them with a password would be two-factor authentication.
And Google really do take without providing anything back.
Bullshit. As the summary stated: if Newscorp really was the victim here, they'd implement a robots.txt file telling Google to go away.
The problem is that if Google went away, Newscorp would lose business.
The rest of your post is even more idiotic than your first two sentences. (Come on, legal theft? If it was theft, it wouldn't be legal, asshat.)
You have every choice not to deal with them. It's perfectly possible to do without - there are other search engines, other webmail providers, other banner networks. If you have a website, you can even exclude them in your robots.txt if you want.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent poster and I agree that those legal protections should not exist in the first place. Rather than extend them to another group, we seek to abolish those protections entirely.
Except he isn't. He's stating that they shouldn't be there, then stating that this is acceptable because it denies it only to a specific group.
Either everybody deserves it or nobody does. You don't say "oh we'll remove them from some people first, then maybe sometime in the future we'll remove it from everybody else."
Jesus changed the rules
Why? If God is perfect, then everything He writes must therefore also be perfect. If they're perfect, why do they need to be changed?
If there were supposed to be two sets of rules, shouldn't they both have been there since the beginning?
how do you develop applications that will run on ALL of these phones when the screen real-estate can be so varied?
The same way you develop PC software that has to run on ALL computers when the screen real-estate is so varied.
Anyone that has done a lot of HTML design knows about the headaches this can cause.
Actually, anyone that doesn't understand HTML believes the headaches it can cause. If you understand HTML, it's not an issue.
Food laws were explicitly repealed in the new testament.
[citation needed]
But even if you're right, I thought that the Bible was the inerrant word of God? Delivered directly to publishers via his Holy Fax Machine (or whatever device He uses.)
If God is perfect, and God wrote the Old Testament, then the Old Testament must therefore still be in effect, right?
Or was God wrong when He wrote the Old Testament?
If you are a Christian, it is explicitly forbidden. Read verse 22
I wonder how many of those "christians" support women's lib and emancipation? After all, allowing women a place of authority is explicitly forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Or how many of them shave? That's explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:27)
Or how many are bankers or moneylenders in general, as charging interest for a loan is explicitly forbidden too (Psalm 15:5)
Or how many wear shirts made of poly-cotton blends - any fabric made of two materials is explicitly forbidden too (Leviticus 19:19, and Deuteronomy 22:11, although Deuteronomy only specifically mentions wool and linen.)
Why aren't they out lobbying for laws against these things too? Emancipation is *way* older than gay rights - seems like they should be focusing their efforts there, shouldn't they? Where is the petition to repeal the right for women to hold public office or hold a job?
They want marriage specifically for the legal protections that straight people already have: so they can force employers to provide health insurance, get estate rights when their partners die, tax breaks, etc.
There, fixed that for you.
Is there something so horrible about people wanting equal treatment under the law?
The problem is: our American culture
The problem is: Americans don't understand that they create their culture.
Culture is not something that is produced by a large company and then "consumed" by citizens. It is an aggregate interactive representation of a society's knowledge and values.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT BLAME OUR GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA!
BLAME BROKEN HOMES AND CORPORATIONS!!
Considering that all of these things are made up of ordinary people, it sounds suspiciously like you are saying "BLAME EVERYONE BUT ME!"
I'm convinced that some companies deliberately post jobs that they have no intention to fill just so they can say they can't find qualified candidates in the US.
You're not wrong.
No, this is not a very unique dilemma. It's only a little bit unique. I've seen many dilemmas which were much more unique than this one.
In fact, on a scale of 1 to 1, where 1 is only a little bit unique, and 1 is completely unique, I would say this particular dilemma rates only a 1.
Australian Student Balloon Rises 100,000 Feet, With a Digital Camera
they have been doing it at least since the 1950's
Umm, yeah, I'm gonna need a citation on that.
Something like this has been available for KDE for ages, only it uses Bluetooth.
You tell it to listen for your phone - when you leave your desk (presumably with the phone in your pocket/holster/etc.) the screen lock kicks in.
Anything to get $250 of that sweet Yaris
So, you're saying you want one of the wheels off it? Why don't you want the whole thing?
So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things
Or maybe have done all that before buying them... what the hell kind of mickey-mouse outfit would buy another company without examining their operations?
I really don't see why anyone would have assumed it was about free broadband for everyone.
It's the Libertardians who believe that anything a European has that they don't have must be provided by the evil, socialist government at gunpoint.
On another note, does anyone read this as a giant "Haista vittu and the m00se you rode in on!" to the **AA and their attempts to push the "three strikes" laws?
If something is a legal right, I imagine it would take (at the very least) conviction criminal court before it could be denied to you.
I can understand basic inalienable rights like food, shelter, clothing, and adequate healthcare. But a right to have internet access? I can only imagine what this will do to Finland's taxes.
Because having food, shelter and clothing declared as rights all mean increased taxes, right?
Oh, wait..
That's obvious - ads for beans.. because if you need your phone to do it for you, you're not producing enough gas!
On a related note, my three-year-old daughter absolutely loves it when someone around her farts, so I started the "pull my finger" bit with her.
The other day, she comes up to me and asks "Dad, I wanna pull your finger!" So I let her pull my finger, and when nothing happened, she looked quizzically at me and said "Hey! Where's the fart!?!?!"
Later she asked me to pull her finger, and when she didn't fart, she had the same reaction.. "Hey! Where's the fart!?!?!"
My wife is somewhat less than thrilled at the whole affair.
Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on
Oh bullshit.
Any "security" measure you can't rely on (in general) is not a security measure at all.
Obscurity is worse than no security at all, because it leads you to believe you're doing something when you're not. People have a tendency to form an emotional bond to the work they do. Obscurity tricks these people into believing their measures are effective, and thus when a threat presents itself, they have fooled themselves into believing their ineffective measures have some merit, and thus are less likely to respond in a timely manner.
Obscurity is not only not helpful, it's actually harmful to security.
They need to have some sort of sensor in-line with the radiation stream to audit the hardware and software output and confirm the human configurations are in line with expectations.
And what if it breaks between the "what is it emitting?" stage and the "OK, point it at the patient" stage?
If it breaks, it should emit zero.
Although there's really no reason that we need a : at all. We could have used a /.
http/slashdot.org
And how do you specify a document-relative URL then?
eg. Suppose in my HTML I have a directory called "http", and inside that a file called "example.com". How would the browser know that <a href="http/example.com"> should point to that file, and not the HTTP service on the server 'example.com'?
Or remove support for ports and use SRV records to find the port. Which would have saved us tons of work with named virtual hosts, and allowed us to run multiple SSL sites on the same IP
It would also have fucked up the ability to test servers by editing /etc/hosts, or created tons *more* work because you'd need to set up a new DNS server when you wanted to test it.
And just because SSL is broken because it doesn't allow you to specify parameters before the SSL connection is established is no reason to foist additional workload on us.
And asking me for my Mother's maiden name is really that much better? Or how about showing me an image that I picked out but will soon ignore after seeing that it never changes?
Those are both the same factor, just like a user's password.
Security factors are
In order to qualify as "two factor", you must have two of those (no, having two of the same factor doesn't count.)
So passwords, personal question, and favourite image are all examples of "something you know", and don't represent two-factor authentication.
The Security-token would be an example of "something you have", and thus combining them with a password would be two-factor authentication.
Which code, precisely, is being protected?
Breaking the checksum allows you to load alternate code on the calculator, so how exactly does it protect a copyrighted work?
Where are we gonna get 50 million cats?
You start with a male cat and a female cat and wait a couple of years.
Wow. I wonder how many lost sales are due to songs being played on the radio!
Technically he is right.
No, he isn't.
And Google really do take without providing anything back.
Bullshit. As the summary stated: if Newscorp really was the victim here, they'd implement a robots.txt file telling Google to go away.
The problem is that if Google went away, Newscorp would lose business.
The rest of your post is even more idiotic than your first two sentences. (Come on, legal theft? If it was theft, it wouldn't be legal, asshat.)
You have every choice not to deal with them. It's perfectly possible to do without - there are other search engines, other webmail providers, other banner networks. If you have a website, you can even exclude them in your robots.txt if you want.