Let's say they looked at it and decided, "Oh, it's just a joke, he doesn't mean anything by it."
Then, two months later, the kid does shoot up a school.
So, you're suggesting we lock up and arrest people for things they didn't do on the basis that they might?
What is the threshold for 'didn't' and 'might' we would consider OK for evidentiary purposes again?
Because there's an vast number of things I haven't done which some moron could decide I should be locked up for in case I 'might'.
Because here's the thing: there's nothing funny about threatening violence against another human being.
There's threatening violence, and making a really really bad joke.
So, if I say "after the revolution when I'm king, I shall have all of your heads on pikes", would you be shocked to learn that I neither have aspirations to foment a revolution nor a desire to become king? Or by your assertion have I suggested treason and insurrection and should be locked away.
If I say "kill all the lawyers", should I expect a class action suit and a legal write saying I've caused all the lawyers emotional distress? (Like I'm going to believe lawyers have feelings.)
How about the good old fashioned "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out"? Have I suggested genocide and need to be locked away?
How about if I say "you should be beaten about the head with a clue stick"?
Have we reached this imaginary threshold where not doing something magically becomes doing something yet?
Because, quite frankly, I don't really buy into this preventative arrest and incarcerating someone for months because a police office is too stupid to understand sarcasm which was immediately qualified with "I'm not doing to do that".
What is it with Apple engineers and 1000 different connectors? Do they have a dongle fetish?
No, they have a near-Teutonic obsession with small, neat, and orderly in their designs.
In the process, they tend to decide that the big honking cables evolved for desktops aren't so useful on small devices and build their own.
The dongles are just a side effect -- and I'm sure in no small measure a desire to lock into proprietary stuff.
But I think Apple has always moved forward with new connection technologies -- I think they were among the first to support USB in an era where PC makers were slavishly doing nothing new because nobody else had done it yet.
Absolutely not, which is why Google Analytics and other such crap is blocked at my firewall or my browser. At every step I block as much information getting to them as possible
I don't trust any multinational company, but I also know I'm not going to live in a cave either.
It sounds like that woman needs to be kicked off the internet. At the very least, have her Internetting license revoked.
The issue isn't nosy ladies who want to poke their nose into stuff... we'll never get rid of those, any more than you'll get rid of the Westboro idiots who want to protest every funeral.
The issue is the epic stupidity of the police for not being able to look at this in context and realize he wasn't actually making a real threat.
It used to be you could make a joke in bad taste and people wouldn't immediately jump to arresting you. But in a world where they need to send cell phone alerts to everyone because of an amber alert, making a joke is now a crime apparently.
but his blind anti-ms zealotry still peeks through and gets upvotes.
Oh, it's not blind, I assure you.
Microsoft drove me to Linux in the early 90's by producing a crap operating system.
I've got an XBox 360 and I run Vista at home (yes, really, and I actually like it), I'm not some knee-jerk Microsoft hater -- I hate them on reasoned principle, and I don't trust them more than I need to. But I do own and use some of their products.
But, again I ask, WTF would I want my phone to know my mood for, and why would I trust Microsoft with the information? Should I be willing to provide even more personal information to make them money and for them to hand over to the first government agency who asks?
I stand by my assertion that Microsoft Research is a big gaping money pit that spends billions every year on stuff people don't want -- how much has been spent on the Microsoft Home of the Future?
I'm sure they'll incorporate it into the new XBone so they can report back to the mothership -- but I sure as heck wouldn't voluntarily install this. I can see no benefit whatsoever in having my phone know if I'm in a bad mood. It just sounds like fetishizing technology.
The researchers created a low-power background service for iPhones and Android handsets
I currently own both an iPad and and Nexus tablet... and if Microsoft thinks I'd be willing to install any of their shit on them, they're sadly mistaken.
WTF would I want my phone to know anything about my mood for? And why should I trust Microsoft with the data? They'll just roll over and hand it to the NSA anyway.
Microsoft Research has specialized in making shit nobody has wanted for years. Pity they couldn't focus on making products people actually want.
So, you're going to help them commit a 'crime' by circumventing the TOS of a site which says you're not allowed to access it?
I fully expect a trade delegation to make their displeasure known... you can't have Kiwis buying songs only intended for Americans or not paying the jacked up prices they expect to receive.
How does one effectively combine engineering/development with another professional skill-set?
Jeezus man, you're a military pilot (or at least flight crew), play to your strengths... disciplined, smart, good under pressure, hard worker, probably work well in a teams, okay with responsibility, big brass ones.
Highlight the entirely useful skillsets and training you got out of that, because you can use those pretty much anywhere. The military doesn't as general rule let idiots and lazy people fly combat missions (at least I hope not).
I should think you could work for any number of places... either in the aviation industry, or technology in general. Because if you still have solid tech skills plus all of requisite leadership training most tech people don't have, you probably have a leg up.
Fuck, failing that, take a few weeks off and hit the bars and just say "hey baby, I'm a pilot" -- but maybe you're already bored with that.;-)
Those things aren't part of the formal requirements in your world?
I've never seen formal requirements which detail every edge case I need to account for.
There's an assumption we'll be writing robust code, and as it gets created we build in as much error checking and handling as we can think of, and over time you usually end up adding more.
If coders had to be told in writing every error condition to check for, there wouldn't be any -- because the client wouldn't know (especially true when you have to create a library to do some of the work), and the developers would just say "not in the spec".
Come to think of it, I've never seen formal requirements for much more than the really high-level systems stuff. From my perspective, a system which has been fully designed and spec'd out before anybody writes code is a myth.
Stop tripling the size of your code for use-cases that no one has asked for, people!
So, we should stop doing any bounds and input checking if the client didn't ask for it explicitly?
Is this part of Agile Programming or something? Write the most incomplete code you can get away with because it isn't in the spec?
I once had a co-worker bitch and complain I was checking the result of every single function, including strprintf() -- he said it was unnecessary. Not long thereafter, we spent some time tracking down a problem which turned out to be in his code, because he wasn't checking anything (again, because it was 'unnecessary').
If you write shitty, incomplete code up front, it's much harder to make it less shitty and incomplete later. If I know from experience there's a bunch of things that can go wrong, I'm going to try to account for as many of those things as possible when I write it.
Those use-cases nobody asked for can sometimes be the difference between code which collapses at the first unusual inputs, and stuff which can at least tell you WTF went wrong. Because sometimes, even the simplest of things can fail.
It doesn't say you are automatically fined. You are automatically flagged for human review.
Who will, in all likelihood, just rubber stamp what the machine tells them.
People are lazy and if you can just keep pressing the enter key all day long, you can surf the web or generally screw the pooch wile you're supposed to be reviewing.
And don't act like people won't do that. Somewhere, Wally from Dilbert will be the one who is supposed to be monitoring this.
OK, so every single law enforcement officer and government official in the country needs to have everything they do on duty recorded, logged, and made public.
If they are going to constantly watch us, they also need to be watched. Their privacy is now irrelevant, as they have decided ours is too. Since they have decided they will collect and store this information without our consent, they sure as hell have no leg to stand on to claim that monitoring them invades their privacy unless we somehow believe they have more rights than we do.
We no longer give a shit about what they want, and quite frankly, we can't trust them any more than we trust the least trustworthy of them -- and I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I can almost guarantee they don't have nearly enough access controls on this -- so you can pretty much assume the cops are accessing this to look up their wives, exes, and friends and other things they have no business using it for.
I think people should take the opportunity to film and record every police officer they see. Put them under constant surveillance. Post it online. Make it publicly available. Then they'll whine and say how unfair it all is, and the collective response should be "if it's OK for you to do it, it's OK for us".
so we either pander to the churches or the homosexuals, either way we are pandering to someone
So were we pandering to blacks and women when we gave them the vote and the right to own property? Or were we shooting for equality?
Giving one group of people the same rights as another isn't pandering.
If America is going to decide that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" didn't really mean 'all', then it is truly a sad day.
It also means that every time someone says "you should do what we do", the response will be "STFU you hypocritical bastards" -- kind of like they'll do now if the US ever suggests to another country they shouldn't spy on their citizens.
I used to have pornography anxiety and from the comfort of my coach I slowly started to get over it. These days I can watch thousands of stressful images or even videos without a single panic attack.
Well played sir. You snuck that in really well.;-)
Isn't this the guy who has been taking OSS stuff and re-licensing it as closed so he can sell it only to fork it and try to do it again?
I'm sorry, Monty, but your track record of selling the product to closed shops doesn't make you someone we trust on this issue. Any why would a developer want to build something which was there to benefit companies first and everyone else later?
I'm pretty sure that, for me, we need to ponder Monty's personal profit motive here. I wouldn't contribute to filling his pockets, and I certainly wouldn't assign him the ownership of my code.
Slashdot Mirror
I am quite certain the original iMac was pretty much USB only before there was Firewire.
A few years later when they were introducing Firewire, they definitely shifted over to that.
But, initially, they introduced machines which had USB in them when it was an add-on and quite uncommon for everything else.
Hmmm, if the internet is a series of tubes, then this is an intertwined set of bendy straws.
Well done!
Wait, what are you talking about, WE decided!?
MY best interests?! How do you know what MY best interest is?
So, you're suggesting we lock up and arrest people for things they didn't do on the basis that they might?
What is the threshold for 'didn't' and 'might' we would consider OK for evidentiary purposes again?
Because there's an vast number of things I haven't done which some moron could decide I should be locked up for in case I 'might'.
There's threatening violence, and making a really really bad joke.
So, if I say "after the revolution when I'm king, I shall have all of your heads on pikes", would you be shocked to learn that I neither have aspirations to foment a revolution nor a desire to become king? Or by your assertion have I suggested treason and insurrection and should be locked away.
If I say "kill all the lawyers", should I expect a class action suit and a legal write saying I've caused all the lawyers emotional distress? (Like I'm going to believe lawyers have feelings.)
How about the good old fashioned "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out"? Have I suggested genocide and need to be locked away?
How about if I say "you should be beaten about the head with a clue stick"?
Have we reached this imaginary threshold where not doing something magically becomes doing something yet?
Because, quite frankly, I don't really buy into this preventative arrest and incarcerating someone for months because a police office is too stupid to understand sarcasm which was immediately qualified with "I'm not doing to do that".
The one has nothing to do with the other ... you may correctly remember, but you might still be crazy. ;-)
I don't doubt that ... super small and space efficient doesn't make for easy to re-assemble.
Hell, most things you can't even cram back into its packaging these days.
So many jokes, so little time ...
No, they have a near-Teutonic obsession with small, neat, and orderly in their designs.
In the process, they tend to decide that the big honking cables evolved for desktops aren't so useful on small devices and build their own.
The dongles are just a side effect -- and I'm sure in no small measure a desire to lock into proprietary stuff.
But I think Apple has always moved forward with new connection technologies -- I think they were among the first to support USB in an era where PC makers were slavishly doing nothing new because nobody else had done it yet.
Absolutely not, which is why Google Analytics and other such crap is blocked at my firewall or my browser. At every step I block as much information getting to them as possible
I don't trust any multinational company, but I also know I'm not going to live in a cave either.
The issue isn't nosy ladies who want to poke their nose into stuff ... we'll never get rid of those, any more than you'll get rid of the Westboro idiots who want to protest every funeral.
The issue is the epic stupidity of the police for not being able to look at this in context and realize he wasn't actually making a real threat.
It used to be you could make a joke in bad taste and people wouldn't immediately jump to arresting you. But in a world where they need to send cell phone alerts to everyone because of an amber alert, making a joke is now a crime apparently.
Wow, that's technology masochism ... do these people also wear enormous butt plugs and itchy clothes?
I'm afraid I don't follow the logic behind something you hate but that was free ... ghonorea is free too.
Oh, it's not blind, I assure you.
Microsoft drove me to Linux in the early 90's by producing a crap operating system.
I've got an XBox 360 and I run Vista at home (yes, really, and I actually like it), I'm not some knee-jerk Microsoft hater -- I hate them on reasoned principle, and I don't trust them more than I need to. But I do own and use some of their products.
But, again I ask, WTF would I want my phone to know my mood for, and why would I trust Microsoft with the information? Should I be willing to provide even more personal information to make them money and for them to hand over to the first government agency who asks?
I stand by my assertion that Microsoft Research is a big gaping money pit that spends billions every year on stuff people don't want -- how much has been spent on the Microsoft Home of the Future?
I'm sure they'll incorporate it into the new XBone so they can report back to the mothership -- but I sure as heck wouldn't voluntarily install this. I can see no benefit whatsoever in having my phone know if I'm in a bad mood. It just sounds like fetishizing technology.
I currently own both an iPad and and Nexus tablet ... and if Microsoft thinks I'd be willing to install any of their shit on them, they're sadly mistaken.
WTF would I want my phone to know anything about my mood for? And why should I trust Microsoft with the data? They'll just roll over and hand it to the NSA anyway.
Microsoft Research has specialized in making shit nobody has wanted for years. Pity they couldn't focus on making products people actually want.
With the rest being an arm of Wall Street.
So, you're going to help them commit a 'crime' by circumventing the TOS of a site which says you're not allowed to access it?
I fully expect a trade delegation to make their displeasure known ... you can't have Kiwis buying songs only intended for Americans or not paying the jacked up prices they expect to receive.
They may have to push for regime change. ;-)
Is that really it? Tamagotchi in space?
I was hoping they would at least try to get robots up there which can do something.
Jeezus man, you're a military pilot (or at least flight crew), play to your strengths ... disciplined, smart, good under pressure, hard worker, probably work well in a teams, okay with responsibility, big brass ones.
Highlight the entirely useful skillsets and training you got out of that, because you can use those pretty much anywhere. The military doesn't as general rule let idiots and lazy people fly combat missions (at least I hope not).
I should think you could work for any number of places ... either in the aviation industry, or technology in general. Because if you still have solid tech skills plus all of requisite leadership training most tech people don't have, you probably have a leg up.
Fuck, failing that, take a few weeks off and hit the bars and just say "hey baby, I'm a pilot" -- but maybe you're already bored with that. ;-)
I've never seen formal requirements which detail every edge case I need to account for.
There's an assumption we'll be writing robust code, and as it gets created we build in as much error checking and handling as we can think of, and over time you usually end up adding more.
If coders had to be told in writing every error condition to check for, there wouldn't be any -- because the client wouldn't know (especially true when you have to create a library to do some of the work), and the developers would just say "not in the spec".
Come to think of it, I've never seen formal requirements for much more than the really high-level systems stuff. From my perspective, a system which has been fully designed and spec'd out before anybody writes code is a myth.
So, we should stop doing any bounds and input checking if the client didn't ask for it explicitly?
Is this part of Agile Programming or something? Write the most incomplete code you can get away with because it isn't in the spec?
I once had a co-worker bitch and complain I was checking the result of every single function, including strprintf() -- he said it was unnecessary. Not long thereafter, we spent some time tracking down a problem which turned out to be in his code, because he wasn't checking anything (again, because it was 'unnecessary').
If you write shitty, incomplete code up front, it's much harder to make it less shitty and incomplete later. If I know from experience there's a bunch of things that can go wrong, I'm going to try to account for as many of those things as possible when I write it.
Those use-cases nobody asked for can sometimes be the difference between code which collapses at the first unusual inputs, and stuff which can at least tell you WTF went wrong. Because sometimes, even the simplest of things can fail.
Who will, in all likelihood, just rubber stamp what the machine tells them.
People are lazy and if you can just keep pressing the enter key all day long, you can surf the web or generally screw the pooch wile you're supposed to be reviewing.
And don't act like people won't do that. Somewhere, Wally from Dilbert will be the one who is supposed to be monitoring this.
OK, so every single law enforcement officer and government official in the country needs to have everything they do on duty recorded, logged, and made public.
If they are going to constantly watch us, they also need to be watched. Their privacy is now irrelevant, as they have decided ours is too. Since they have decided they will collect and store this information without our consent, they sure as hell have no leg to stand on to claim that monitoring them invades their privacy unless we somehow believe they have more rights than we do.
We no longer give a shit about what they want, and quite frankly, we can't trust them any more than we trust the least trustworthy of them -- and I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I can almost guarantee they don't have nearly enough access controls on this -- so you can pretty much assume the cops are accessing this to look up their wives, exes, and friends and other things they have no business using it for.
I think people should take the opportunity to film and record every police officer they see. Put them under constant surveillance. Post it online. Make it publicly available. Then they'll whine and say how unfair it all is, and the collective response should be "if it's OK for you to do it, it's OK for us".
So were we pandering to blacks and women when we gave them the vote and the right to own property? Or were we shooting for equality?
Giving one group of people the same rights as another isn't pandering.
If America is going to decide that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" didn't really mean 'all', then it is truly a sad day.
It also means that every time someone says "you should do what we do", the response will be "STFU you hypocritical bastards" -- kind of like they'll do now if the US ever suggests to another country they shouldn't spy on their citizens.
Well played sir. You snuck that in really well. ;-)
Isn't this the guy who has been taking OSS stuff and re-licensing it as closed so he can sell it only to fork it and try to do it again?
I'm sorry, Monty, but your track record of selling the product to closed shops doesn't make you someone we trust on this issue. Any why would a developer want to build something which was there to benefit companies first and everyone else later?
I'm pretty sure that, for me, we need to ponder Monty's personal profit motive here. I wouldn't contribute to filling his pockets, and I certainly wouldn't assign him the ownership of my code.
Because it's shiny.
They're not thinking of security, they're thinking "ZOMG, I can switch off teh lights from teh phone".
Nobody thinks that if there's a way for you to remotely control your home, there's a threat vector for someone else to remotely control your home.