Now I'll admit that I'm not an expert on green party policy, but you describe the greens as some form of libertarian leaning group. In Canada that couldn't be further from the truth. Our political spectrum at the federal level has the conservative party at one end, the liberals in the middle, the NDP at the other end... and then about 1000 miles further on is the green party. They make our most liberal, most nanny-state party, look like libertarians. Their platform in the last election was extremely socialist. (and yes, they did actually put out a comprehensive platform, not just on environmental issues)
Now don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the green party, and I love the fact that our political system has allowed a new party to appear, and actually make progress toward becoming a serious national player. But you won't find me actually voting for them as their platform currently stands.
I thought one of the biggest advantages to building your own computer was the ability NOT to pay microsoft for the privelidge of owning a computer. Sure there are one or 2 small places that allow you to buy a windows free, pre-built system, but usually with fairly limited selection of specs, and often no cheaper than a PC with windows installed (which tells me the company is probably paying Microsoft for the license, even though you aren't getting one (likely a bulk agreement where they pay microsoft per system sold instead of per license installed)) Building your own computer has, for years, been the only way to ensure you got your ideal machine, without having to also buy a windows license to run an operating system you already own, or are allowed to get for free. I've built my own computers exclusively for nearly 20 years... though I must admit that I've slipped a bit here, I'm starting to look to a new computer now, and I haven't kept up with the latest news on components, It's not as easy as it once was to figure out which part is better than which other one, and without having kept up it's a bit of a daunting task to select the right parts this time... I'm debating just buying a pre-built system, but I don't really want to go that route after nearly 20 years of doing it myself.
And why shouldn't they have granted asylum? Your quote states that they shouldn't grant it to someone "under indictment or on trial for common offences, or have been convicted by competent regular courts" none of those conditions apply. no charge have been laid, no trials held, and no convictions given. Additionally you put out the exemption "save when the acts giving rise to the request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature" What could possibly be MORE political than this case?
As for the USA not pursuing a case against him... when has that ever stopped the USA in the past???
Hardly, the USA won't sign those treaties either... For that matter the USA won't generally sign any treaty that isn't horribly one-sided, and if they do in fact sign a treaty giving equal rights to both sides, they'll simply ignore it whenever it is inconvenient. The USA is the schoolyard bully of the international stage, they do things however they feel, whenever they feel, with no regard for the consequences, and can't understand why everyone isn't in love with them.
Minor (or actually pretty major) nitpick... there are no rape charges. He hasn't been charged with anything. he was wanted for questioning. He was already questioned once in Sweden, he was told he was free to go, so he left, then they decided to ask him again, he even offered to be questioned in the UK, Sweden said no. He offered to be questioned in the embassy, Sweden said no. He offered to go to Sweden if they promised not to extradite him to the USA, they refused to guarantee that.
Minor (or actually pretty major) nitpick... there are no rape charges. He hasn't been charged with anything. he was wanted for questioning. He was already questioned once in Sweden, he was told he was free to go, so he left, then they decided to ask him again, he even offered to be questioned in the UK, Sweden said no. He offered to be questioned in the embassy, Sweden said no. He offered to go to Sweden if they promised not to extradite him to the USA, they refused to guarantee that. Kinda hard to imagine that this is actually about rape when they haven't charged him, and refuse to guarantee they won't send him to a country with no affiliation to said crime.
And why is that? I don't live in the USA, and the OP didn't state that they did either. The concept of free speech predates the USA by quite a bit, and the USA is one of the countries that has routinely shown contempt for the whole concept of rule-or-law or free speech even within it's own borders, let alone in the rest of the world where they don't even pay lip service to due process. If you want to argue that the USA won some war in the past that might have helped someone, I'd remind you that the USA did not act alone, and in fact was quite late to the party. And Contrary to what is shown in Hollywood, the USA didn't win anything by itself.
And my 4" phone is more portable yet. and better still, I'm already carrying it! If I want a tablet I want it big enough to use, 10" is marginal, but workable, a little bigger would be better (ideally the same size as an A4 sheet of paper (or 8 1/2x11 for the americans, close enough to the same)) If I want ultra portable I'll use my phone, I see no advantage whatsoever in a device half way between those 2... 7" is too small for anything requiring large amounts of detail and yet too big for being tossed in my pant pocket and forgetting about. It is just an utterly useless size. I was extremely disappointed to discover that Google's tablet was a 7" offering, I had so looked forward to it until I learned that it was a useless size. For now I'll keep my phone for reading ebooks, quick emails, and all other things that I want with me at all times, and keep my 10" tablet with it's keyboard accessory for any serious work when travelling (has completely replaced a laptop for me)
A few suggestions: - leave youtube, find a better host, or self host - follow the DMCA through to conclusion by taking the fraudulent entity to court. - write your government representitives - move to a country with sane laws (very few of those left, but it's worth a try)
It's worse than that, the original poster complains when we don't give enough information, but if I take the time to type out everything they actually need I get "are you still there?" and sometimes not even that, just a disconnect because I haven't sent them anything in too long (and I am NOT a slow typist!) I can send "My tablet doesn't work" but that doesn't help anyone, or I can try to send "My tablet, model ________ is giving me error message ___________________ on bootup, I have tried a battery pull, and a factory reset, neither of which fixed the problem. This all started after I tried a firmware upgrade from your website to version ____________. I also tried re-doing the firmware upgrade, but that didn't help, and I tried the old firmware version ______, but the tablet won't accept that because it claims it's too old"
the second one gives enough information, but is usually cut off with "are you still there?" or "you have been disconnected for inactivity" Worse still, if I do send the second one, I usually instantly get a canned response back that says "I need your model number", so I re-send that part, then another canned response with the step by step on how to do a factory reset, at which point I usually get a bit frustrated and tell the "tech" to actually read what I typed the first time, which usually comes back with another response telling me to do a factory reset with exact instructions. 30-40 minutes later, after we finally get through all the stuff that I told them I already tried, I get a "sorry I can't fix your problem, we need you to call our second level people at this long distance international number, they are open 11am to 1pm in a timezone on the opposite side of the planet, except for their lunch break between 1101 and 1259, and they won't be able to fix your problem either"
The point isn't to stop them before detaching your eyeball, it's to make it pointless for them to bother. If they know that a detached eyeball won't work, why would they detach it? someone could come cut my eyeball out right now, but the lack of any authentication system making use of it means there is no reason to do so. similarly if all authentication devices require a LIVE eyeball, criminals will have no use for a detached one. There is no police force, alarm system, or other security force in existence that makes crime impossible. They all just seek to make crime more difficult, or to stop criminals after the fact. The thing is, criminals know this, and the mere existence of these systems prevents large amounts of crime.
Some products survive a ban in the USA and are still available in Canada, however the loss of a market the size of the USA makes many manufacturers just give up and then Canada gets screwed too...
And this is exactly why duresse codes exist. if you can give them a "something you know" that gets help dispatched quickly, without tipping off the bad guys, you're in a lot better position. (and they don't dare kill you until they've verified that the information they extracted from you is accurate) Also improvements to the technology authenticating the "something you are" to make copying impossible is a good thing because it forces them to take you to the authentication device, giving you some measure of temporary safety. preventing people from using a detached eyeball is easy in several different ways. first of all you can check pupil response or similar to make sure the eye behaves as if it's alive. secondly (and most importantly) you can put the checking device in a supervised place where someone walking up to it with a detached eyeball might attract some attention. this also helps when dealing with coersion/kidnapping issues, and makes even simple attacks like showing a picture to the scanner much more difficult as you now have to have that picture attached to your retina to make it work. Biometrics done right are wonderful, biometrics done wrong are our worst nightmare.
It seems to me that it would be easy to prevent that particular attack just by checking pupil reaction. If it doesn't react, the eye isn't attached to a living organism and shouldn't be allowed. Additionally, nothing high security should ever be single factor authentication anyway. Biometrics done right are really good, biometrics done wrong are our worst nightmare.
If they're still paying you, and they ask you to go to the exit interview, then your responsibility is to go to the exit interview. If they've stopped paying you, you can do whatever you feel like. So I guess it depends on if the exit interview is "on the clock" or not.
As for what to say... Lots of variables there... but I know where I stand if I ever leave my current employer. If I leave, it is likely I will be switching fields completely, and that I already have a job at a new employer, as such, it is unlikely that it will matter much if I burn any bridges. I'm not however a jerk, so I still don't intentionally burn bridges. I would take the opportunity to give constructive feedback on problems in the company. I would not be talking about specific people (because that's not really the problem where I work) but more about overall issues, and that priorities may not be in the right places. I would be nice about it, and honestly, I doubt anything it would change within the company, but at least I did my bit. The company can either like it, or not, but as I'd already be leaving, there wouldn't be anything they can do about it if they don't like it. And I would feel better knowing I did things honestly.
You don't HAVE to add them to your circles, if random guy I don't know adds me to their circles, I don't add them back (and I do have a couple of those... though I have no idea why) it is very explicit when you look at it who is following who. if random guy is following you without you following back, it makes them look like a stalker, doesn't make you look bad, in fact if anything it makes you look good because you must be interesting if you have fans like that. The only time it is awkward is when your real life friendship is also awkward (ie that creepy guy who somehow ends up at the same parties as you and just sits in the corner all night... you don't want to add him because he's not really a friend... but he's at all the same events you are, so you don't feel right excluding him either for fear of offending him and having to deal with it the next time you see him)
This allows famous people to interact more easilly, they can have millions of fans following them without needing to approve each and every one, and yet they can still have only their actual friends in their own circles, and share more personal stuff only with them, without having to share it with their millions of followers, and without having to have a seperate persona for their public selves from their private lives. Now famous people are somewhat of an extreme example, but it scales well for all levels.
I do have a fair number of complaints about a few things google has done, but the setup of their circles is not one of them, that's one place that I feel Google nailed it just right.
I don't believe the tablet in question had an SD card slot (in fact that was one of my reasons for not buying it) that said, the different aspect ratio, which forced a different shape to the device, the different buttons, the different back, the word SAMSUNG on the bezel and back, the different operating system with completely different interface using a completely different home screen look sort of gave me a slight hint that it may not be an iPad...
Anyone can add you to their circles, but unless you either a) post everything as public for EVERYONE to see, or b) add them to one of your circles in return, they won't see anything you post anyway, so what's it matter? This is one thing Google Plus has done right. The default for posting is to only show your posts to people in your own circles, but you can show stuff to the entire world if you want. If you want to talk about what's "mean" the only thing I don't like is that people can see who you have in your circles, so sometimes you feel pressure to add someone just to be polite, of course you can always have a circle for those people and not share anything with them... They can't see WHICH circle you put them in...
Currently, no. because DVDs contain "digital locks" the new copyright law removes the right you had under the previous law to do just that. However, what this court case demonstrates is that the Supreme Court does have some sense of reason and therefore there is a chance that if someone does challenge the digital locks provision all the way to the supreme court, it may be overturned which would make it legal to once again use the media you already paid for in whatever way you want. Basically though the new copyright law is still too new for any of it to have made it's way all the way to the Supreme Court, so we won't get to find out for sure for a while yet (my best guess... 10 years... which of course also likely means a completely different set of judges on the supreme court, so it's hard to say for sure...)
Canadian notes are all the same size, which is more convenient for many things, however they do have some braille-like bumps on them to assist blind people (I don't think they are actually braille, but they are bumps that are different on each denomination)
"redish brown" is one way I would define orange... And the $1 had green on the front as well as the black and yellow, and the overall appearance was "green" though a notably different shade than that of the $20 I don't think of myself as old... but I certainly remember the $1 and $2 bills (theoretically I should still have one of each around somewhere...)
Slashdot Mirror
Now I'll admit that I'm not an expert on green party policy, but you describe the greens as some form of libertarian leaning group. In Canada that couldn't be further from the truth. Our political spectrum at the federal level has the conservative party at one end, the liberals in the middle, the NDP at the other end... and then about 1000 miles further on is the green party. They make our most liberal, most nanny-state party, look like libertarians. Their platform in the last election was extremely socialist. (and yes, they did actually put out a comprehensive platform, not just on environmental issues)
Now don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the green party, and I love the fact that our political system has allowed a new party to appear, and actually make progress toward becoming a serious national player. But you won't find me actually voting for them as their platform currently stands.
I thought one of the biggest advantages to building your own computer was the ability NOT to pay microsoft for the privelidge of owning a computer. Sure there are one or 2 small places that allow you to buy a windows free, pre-built system, but usually with fairly limited selection of specs, and often no cheaper than a PC with windows installed (which tells me the company is probably paying Microsoft for the license, even though you aren't getting one (likely a bulk agreement where they pay microsoft per system sold instead of per license installed))
Building your own computer has, for years, been the only way to ensure you got your ideal machine, without having to also buy a windows license to run an operating system you already own, or are allowed to get for free.
I've built my own computers exclusively for nearly 20 years... though I must admit that I've slipped a bit here, I'm starting to look to a new computer now, and I haven't kept up with the latest news on components, It's not as easy as it once was to figure out which part is better than which other one, and without having kept up it's a bit of a daunting task to select the right parts this time... I'm debating just buying a pre-built system, but I don't really want to go that route after nearly 20 years of doing it myself.
That doesn't change the fact that not a single charge has been laid.
And why shouldn't they have granted asylum?
Your quote states that they shouldn't grant it to someone "under indictment or on trial for common offences, or have been convicted by competent regular courts"
none of those conditions apply. no charge have been laid, no trials held, and no convictions given.
Additionally you put out the exemption "save when the acts giving rise to the request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature" What could possibly be MORE political than this case?
As for the USA not pursuing a case against him... when has that ever stopped the USA in the past???
Hardly, the USA won't sign those treaties either... For that matter the USA won't generally sign any treaty that isn't horribly one-sided, and if they do in fact sign a treaty giving equal rights to both sides, they'll simply ignore it whenever it is inconvenient.
The USA is the schoolyard bully of the international stage, they do things however they feel, whenever they feel, with no regard for the consequences, and can't understand why everyone isn't in love with them.
Minor (or actually pretty major) nitpick... there are no rape charges. He hasn't been charged with anything. he was wanted for questioning. He was already questioned once in Sweden, he was told he was free to go, so he left, then they decided to ask him again, he even offered to be questioned in the UK, Sweden said no. He offered to be questioned in the embassy, Sweden said no. He offered to go to Sweden if they promised not to extradite him to the USA, they refused to guarantee that.
Minor (or actually pretty major) nitpick... there are no rape charges. He hasn't been charged with anything. he was wanted for questioning. He was already questioned once in Sweden, he was told he was free to go, so he left, then they decided to ask him again, he even offered to be questioned in the UK, Sweden said no. He offered to be questioned in the embassy, Sweden said no. He offered to go to Sweden if they promised not to extradite him to the USA, they refused to guarantee that.
Kinda hard to imagine that this is actually about rape when they haven't charged him, and refuse to guarantee they won't send him to a country with no affiliation to said crime.
Just don't try to say anything smart... that sort of thing will get you persecuted...
And why is that? I don't live in the USA, and the OP didn't state that they did either. The concept of free speech predates the USA by quite a bit, and the USA is one of the countries that has routinely shown contempt for the whole concept of rule-or-law or free speech even within it's own borders, let alone in the rest of the world where they don't even pay lip service to due process.
If you want to argue that the USA won some war in the past that might have helped someone, I'd remind you that the USA did not act alone, and in fact was quite late to the party. And Contrary to what is shown in Hollywood, the USA didn't win anything by itself.
Or Canada
And my 4" phone is more portable yet. and better still, I'm already carrying it!
If I want a tablet I want it big enough to use, 10" is marginal, but workable, a little bigger would be better (ideally the same size as an A4 sheet of paper (or 8 1/2x11 for the americans, close enough to the same)) If I want ultra portable I'll use my phone, I see no advantage whatsoever in a device half way between those 2... 7" is too small for anything requiring large amounts of detail and yet too big for being tossed in my pant pocket and forgetting about. It is just an utterly useless size.
I was extremely disappointed to discover that Google's tablet was a 7" offering, I had so looked forward to it until I learned that it was a useless size.
For now I'll keep my phone for reading ebooks, quick emails, and all other things that I want with me at all times, and keep my 10" tablet with it's keyboard accessory for any serious work when travelling (has completely replaced a laptop for me)
Dunno what to do...
A few suggestions:
- leave youtube, find a better host, or self host
- follow the DMCA through to conclusion by taking the fraudulent entity to court.
- write your government representitives
- move to a country with sane laws (very few of those left, but it's worth a try)
You're implying that the goal of the DMCA was as publicly stated... Perhaps it is working exactly as intended.
It's worse than that, the original poster complains when we don't give enough information, but if I take the time to type out everything they actually need I get "are you still there?" and sometimes not even that, just a disconnect because I haven't sent them anything in too long (and I am NOT a slow typist!)
I can send "My tablet doesn't work" but that doesn't help anyone, or I can try to send "My tablet, model ________ is giving me error message ___________________ on bootup, I have tried a battery pull, and a factory reset, neither of which fixed the problem. This all started after I tried a firmware upgrade from your website to version ____________. I also tried re-doing the firmware upgrade, but that didn't help, and I tried the old firmware version ______, but the tablet won't accept that because it claims it's too old"
the second one gives enough information, but is usually cut off with "are you still there?" or "you have been disconnected for inactivity" Worse still, if I do send the second one, I usually instantly get a canned response back that says "I need your model number", so I re-send that part, then another canned response with the step by step on how to do a factory reset, at which point I usually get a bit frustrated and tell the "tech" to actually read what I typed the first time, which usually comes back with another response telling me to do a factory reset with exact instructions. 30-40 minutes later, after we finally get through all the stuff that I told them I already tried, I get a "sorry I can't fix your problem, we need you to call our second level people at this long distance international number, they are open 11am to 1pm in a timezone on the opposite side of the planet, except for their lunch break between 1101 and 1259, and they won't be able to fix your problem either"
The point isn't to stop them before detaching your eyeball, it's to make it pointless for them to bother. If they know that a detached eyeball won't work, why would they detach it? someone could come cut my eyeball out right now, but the lack of any authentication system making use of it means there is no reason to do so. similarly if all authentication devices require a LIVE eyeball, criminals will have no use for a detached one.
There is no police force, alarm system, or other security force in existence that makes crime impossible. They all just seek to make crime more difficult, or to stop criminals after the fact. The thing is, criminals know this, and the mere existence of these systems prevents large amounts of crime.
Some products survive a ban in the USA and are still available in Canada, however the loss of a market the size of the USA makes many manufacturers just give up and then Canada gets screwed too...
And this is exactly why duresse codes exist. if you can give them a "something you know" that gets help dispatched quickly, without tipping off the bad guys, you're in a lot better position. (and they don't dare kill you until they've verified that the information they extracted from you is accurate)
Also improvements to the technology authenticating the "something you are" to make copying impossible is a good thing because it forces them to take you to the authentication device, giving you some measure of temporary safety.
preventing people from using a detached eyeball is easy in several different ways. first of all you can check pupil response or similar to make sure the eye behaves as if it's alive. secondly (and most importantly) you can put the checking device in a supervised place where someone walking up to it with a detached eyeball might attract some attention. this also helps when dealing with coersion/kidnapping issues, and makes even simple attacks like showing a picture to the scanner much more difficult as you now have to have that picture attached to your retina to make it work.
Biometrics done right are wonderful, biometrics done wrong are our worst nightmare.
It seems to me that it would be easy to prevent that particular attack just by checking pupil reaction. If it doesn't react, the eye isn't attached to a living organism and shouldn't be allowed. Additionally, nothing high security should ever be single factor authentication anyway.
Biometrics done right are really good, biometrics done wrong are our worst nightmare.
If they're still paying you, and they ask you to go to the exit interview, then your responsibility is to go to the exit interview. If they've stopped paying you, you can do whatever you feel like. So I guess it depends on if the exit interview is "on the clock" or not.
As for what to say... Lots of variables there... but I know where I stand if I ever leave my current employer.
If I leave, it is likely I will be switching fields completely, and that I already have a job at a new employer, as such, it is unlikely that it will matter much if I burn any bridges. I'm not however a jerk, so I still don't intentionally burn bridges. I would take the opportunity to give constructive feedback on problems in the company. I would not be talking about specific people (because that's not really the problem where I work) but more about overall issues, and that priorities may not be in the right places. I would be nice about it, and honestly, I doubt anything it would change within the company, but at least I did my bit. The company can either like it, or not, but as I'd already be leaving, there wouldn't be anything they can do about it if they don't like it. And I would feel better knowing I did things honestly.
You don't HAVE to add them to your circles, if random guy I don't know adds me to their circles, I don't add them back (and I do have a couple of those... though I have no idea why) it is very explicit when you look at it who is following who. if random guy is following you without you following back, it makes them look like a stalker, doesn't make you look bad, in fact if anything it makes you look good because you must be interesting if you have fans like that. The only time it is awkward is when your real life friendship is also awkward (ie that creepy guy who somehow ends up at the same parties as you and just sits in the corner all night... you don't want to add him because he's not really a friend... but he's at all the same events you are, so you don't feel right excluding him either for fear of offending him and having to deal with it the next time you see him)
This allows famous people to interact more easilly, they can have millions of fans following them without needing to approve each and every one, and yet they can still have only their actual friends in their own circles, and share more personal stuff only with them, without having to share it with their millions of followers, and without having to have a seperate persona for their public selves from their private lives. Now famous people are somewhat of an extreme example, but it scales well for all levels.
I do have a fair number of complaints about a few things google has done, but the setup of their circles is not one of them, that's one place that I feel Google nailed it just right.
I don't believe the tablet in question had an SD card slot (in fact that was one of my reasons for not buying it)
that said, the different aspect ratio, which forced a different shape to the device, the different buttons, the different back, the word SAMSUNG on the bezel and back, the different operating system with completely different interface using a completely different home screen look sort of gave me a slight hint that it may not be an iPad...
Anyone can add you to their circles, but unless you either a) post everything as public for EVERYONE to see, or b) add them to one of your circles in return, they won't see anything you post anyway, so what's it matter?
This is one thing Google Plus has done right. The default for posting is to only show your posts to people in your own circles, but you can show stuff to the entire world if you want.
If you want to talk about what's "mean" the only thing I don't like is that people can see who you have in your circles, so sometimes you feel pressure to add someone just to be polite, of course you can always have a circle for those people and not share anything with them... They can't see WHICH circle you put them in...
Currently, no. because DVDs contain "digital locks" the new copyright law removes the right you had under the previous law to do just that.
However, what this court case demonstrates is that the Supreme Court does have some sense of reason and therefore there is a chance that if someone does challenge the digital locks provision all the way to the supreme court, it may be overturned which would make it legal to once again use the media you already paid for in whatever way you want. Basically though the new copyright law is still too new for any of it to have made it's way all the way to the Supreme Court, so we won't get to find out for sure for a while yet (my best guess... 10 years... which of course also likely means a completely different set of judges on the supreme court, so it's hard to say for sure...)
Canadian notes are all the same size, which is more convenient for many things, however they do have some braille-like bumps on them to assist blind people (I don't think they are actually braille, but they are bumps that are different on each denomination)
"redish brown" is one way I would define orange...
And the $1 had green on the front as well as the black and yellow, and the overall appearance was "green" though a notably different shade than that of the $20
I don't think of myself as old... but I certainly remember the $1 and $2 bills (theoretically I should still have one of each around somewhere...)