It would be ironic if Faux News hadn't argued, and won in court, that they are not obliged to tell the truth in their "news casts" because they're really just entertainment.
Too bad your version of the facts isn't the true one. He initially DID give the information to reporters - Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. It was only when things got too hot that he ended up "on the other side." At no point before he was forced into hiding was he "spying for the Russians and Chinese."
All it takes is one juror to hang a jury... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.
On the other hand, people who have gone bankrupt and caused other to lose money, people who have trolled death threats on Twitter, people who have committed crimes have done something wrong in the eyes of society.
Would they be doing this if they couldn't remain anonymous? Doubt it very much.
there is still prejudice. While I'm sure everyone wants it to go away, not everyone wants to be the one pushing the issue and would simply prefer to hide it so that they can live. Cowardly perhaps, but when you have a mortgage and a family or your health is poor sometimes having a job is more important than making a point
It's a shame that most people want the benefits of the fight waged by their predecessors, but are unwilling to pay it forward. It some point you have to say "enough", or the h8ters p0wn you, body, mind, and soul.
Living in fear every day of losing your job because someone outs you is not a life, and it's extremely harmful to your health, both physically and mentally. The sight of the grandmothers in Kiev defending Freedom Square with rocks against armed government snipers should put everyone else to shame.
There is actually evidence of this happening, contrary to what you say. Originally people poked fun of Bruce Jenner. Now, not so much. People used to be openly racist. Now, not so much. People used to think that a divorced woman was disgraceful. Now, not so much. Light has always been a good way to chase away darkness.
You mean the guy who said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." and "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace", "The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection", "It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe", "Let them call me a rebel and welcome. I feel no concern from it. But should I suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul", etc.
That is the exact opposite of someone who would hide behind anonymity.
If you've taken any time looking through the stuff that goes through the firehose, it's hard to remember, when seeing 3 submissions over 3 days on the same subject, if you remember them because you've seen it in the firehose before or if it was posted before. Try it for a month.
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to. I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
When all the gamergate "OMG they know my address" stupidity was going on, I pointed out how absurd it was by posting my address here on slashdot even before I was challenged to do so; made my critics look pretty stupid when they were saying "How would you react if someone posted your address on the internet." My phone number's also out there. There's nothing for adults to be afraid of.
Being stalked IRL or online - been there, it was creepy, but I'm still okay and one cyberstalker was identified by the police and lost their job. Wouldn't have been possible if I had been posting anonymously.
I stand openly behind my words, my ideas, and my rights. Too bad more people don't have the courage of their convictions to do the same.
I noticed you didn't say anything about the second method, which I've used before I started doing this: just keeping track of what your code is doing so you don't have dangling pointers. Unfortunately, most people are too lazy to keep track of their allocations and frees and who owns what.
It's not rocket science, and the last way is the best way in c. It also runs faster using less memory. The path(s) of execution should be well known - if they aren't, your code is bad - after all, programs are deterministic. Even threaded or interrupt-driven programs.
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
One thing I would point out that he gave them to point out to the American people the extent to which the government was violating the constitutiion; there was no way to do that without the whole world knowing (including the ruskies and the chinese). And, of course, if the government hadn't been breaking the law and the constitution, none of this would have happened, and it's to prevent the USA from becoming another North Korea / USSR / China.
And then to ask the same question that's been asked about the banks - why not a single conviction for the law-breakers.
Excellent point. Really weird that she's hated for something she didn't even say. What she said:
Her offense: “It’s time,” she said, “for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”
What h8ters turned it into:
“It is definitely not time for ‘all the gay people’ and ‘all the people of color’ to set aside their own battle for equality in order to fight for straight, white women now,” thundered Amanda Marcotte in a piece for Slate titled, “Patricia Arquette’s Feminism: Only for White Women.”
Nowhere did she say that those other battles should be set aside. And yet, as you pointed out, people with an agenda to make money and engage in self-promotion are there right out of the gate.
H8ters gotta hate, but that's no excuse for everyone else to turn off the grey matter:-)
In my piece defending Hannan from those accusing him of murder, I had quoted a well-known transgender activist who, parting with many of her fellow transsexuals, told me that Hannan “did a good job” for “follow[ing] a mystery.” But none of this mattered. I was summarily derided for my “privilege,” inherent in the fact, I was repeatedly told, of my being white and gay, and ordered to prostrate myself before, and apologize to, the victimized trans community at large. On Twitter, The Nation’s sports columnist asked aloud if there were “any defenseless person you won’t shit on,” before Jew-baiting me for good measure, rhetorically asking, “if you could write an article destroying a transgender child in Gaza, would that make your day, month, or year?” (Trans, if you haven’t yet figured it out, beats gay and Jew.)
I agree with the author. Hannan followed the facts. Big deal. It's the same with Briana Wu, who continues a long line of what I call overdoing it when it comes to being an m2f transsexual (while denying it). Many, when we shed the pretense of what we are not, instead of just "being who we are", put on an exaggerated pretense of what we believe society sees as a woman - right down to becoming hyper-feminists as a way to assert that we really are women.
For some, it's a temporary state; for others, it becomes a form of misandry and a way to beat up on critics by invoking political correctness. And, of course, if they can get your 15 minutes of fame by being a professional victim...
I agree with the last paragraph. Then again, I've been calling it "anti-social media" since the turn of the century, so what do I know:-)
But you still have to start with the data. Algorithms by themselves are meaningless. The data structure can be modified to accommodate more efficient algorithms, but without the original data structures, you've no real place to start, whether it's a census database or the attributes of a character in an RPG.
And the problem with making your data too tightly coupled to the algorithms is that because they are now more tightly coupled, you might find yourself in a jam when changes have to be made to the data structures.
They should NOT be "so tightly bound together that you can't DO them separately".
And that's why it's the defense's job to get the facts before the jury and let them decide if his acts were justified - no need to claim his acts were justified - just enough facts to leave a really bad taste in at least one juror's mouth.
It's why the EU right to have old, irrelevant search results is so important. Society has to forgive and forget, otherwise lives are ruined by one or two mistakes. It's great that machines remember everything for us, but also terrible.
I would say it's the opposite - that if everyone has their mistakes on parade, then it' makes it easier for others can admit that they too aren't perfect. Instead of trying to appear what we're not, we should be more interested in being who we are, warts and all, and encouraging others to do the same.
It wasn't that long ago that a woman who was raped was considered "ruined for life." By speaking out about it instead of trying to hide it, that is no longer the case. Same with gays and lesbians that used to have to hide in the closet. We can't go on wasting lives with some false idea that if you can get people to forget about it, you don't have to deal with it.
We simply can't advance, either as individuals or a society, if we actively "forget" anything that society labels a "mistake." Imagine a world where everyone can't throw rocks because everyone else knows the rock-throwers are also not so perfect.
Oh wait, every video that you make featuring your li'l buddy Timmyboy is a loser edit.
Dice, PLEASE fire these guys. Timmyboy is still very proud of his "journalism degree." He JUST DOESN'T GET IT.
The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that. Also, if they edit submissions too much "for clarity" the submitter will complain that's not what they wrote. So what are you going to do?
People were originally upset when SciAm started publishing articles about things like the politics behind nuclear weapons control back in (IIRC) the '80s. I was one of them, but one day there was one that caught my attention, was interesting, etc. - so I stopped my complaining.
Sure, some of the articles posted are of low quality... I regularly up-vote them if they're stupidity like the Ask Slashdot "I heard there was money in app development" / "How can I interest my 2-year-old in programming" / etc., because they ARE stupid, but if they don't see the light of day, we'll never get to give the poster (and others with similar bad/naive ideas) a whack with the ol' clue-by-four. Not everything posted should agree with your world view or what you consider is acceptable news.
Sounds good in theory, but the deep pockets can still push an inventor into bankruptcy by challenging a patent. This doesn't protect the little guy at all.
What do you mean by "memory architecture"?
I am willing to suspend my disbelief that someone who believes they have directly communicated with a metaphysical entity couldn't give me advice concerning programming.
From the context, I gather that maybe what he meant to say was "data structures"?
... and removing duplicate code, turning some code into a reusable library that can be used in other projects, de-obfuscating "cute" code that you wrote in a midnight caffeine-fueled "in the zone" blur of clarity (you know this is not a contradiction if you've been there), calling an existing library that you found does the same job as your code but is more flexible, adding cross-platform #ifdefs, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be ironic if Faux News hadn't argued, and won in court, that they are not obliged to tell the truth in their "news casts" because they're really just entertainment.
Too bad your version of the facts isn't the true one. He initially DID give the information to reporters - Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. It was only when things got too hot that he ended up "on the other side." At no point before he was forced into hiding was he "spying for the Russians and Chinese."
All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.
On the other hand, people who have gone bankrupt and caused other to lose money, people who have trolled death threats on Twitter, people who have committed crimes have done something wrong in the eyes of society.
Would they be doing this if they couldn't remain anonymous? Doubt it very much.
there is still prejudice. While I'm sure everyone wants it to go away, not everyone wants to be the one pushing the issue and would simply prefer to hide it so that they can live. Cowardly perhaps, but when you have a mortgage and a family or your health is poor sometimes having a job is more important than making a point
It's a shame that most people want the benefits of the fight waged by their predecessors, but are unwilling to pay it forward. It some point you have to say "enough", or the h8ters p0wn you, body, mind, and soul.
Living in fear every day of losing your job because someone outs you is not a life, and it's extremely harmful to your health, both physically and mentally. The sight of the grandmothers in Kiev defending Freedom Square with rocks against armed government snipers should put everyone else to shame.
There is actually evidence of this happening, contrary to what you say. Originally people poked fun of Bruce Jenner. Now, not so much. People used to be openly racist. Now, not so much. People used to think that a divorced woman was disgraceful. Now, not so much. Light has always been a good way to chase away darkness.
You mean the guy who said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." and "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace", "The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection", "It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe", "Let them call me a rebel and welcome. I feel no concern from it. But should I suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul", etc.
That is the exact opposite of someone who would hide behind anonymity.
If you've taken any time looking through the stuff that goes through the firehose, it's hard to remember, when seeing 3 submissions over 3 days on the same subject, if you remember them because you've seen it in the firehose before or if it was posted before. Try it for a month.
If you don't have the courage of openly standing behind your opinions, then maybe they aren't worth listening to. I've been the target of a fair amount of hate and discrimination, but you don't see me backing down. Or hiding behind a nym.
When all the gamergate "OMG they know my address" stupidity was going on, I pointed out how absurd it was by posting my address here on slashdot even before I was challenged to do so; made my critics look pretty stupid when they were saying "How would you react if someone posted your address on the internet." My phone number's also out there. There's nothing for adults to be afraid of.
Being stalked IRL or online - been there, it was creepy, but I'm still okay and one cyberstalker was identified by the police and lost their job. Wouldn't have been possible if I had been posting anonymously.
I stand openly behind my words, my ideas, and my rights. Too bad more people don't have the courage of their convictions to do the same.
It's not rocket science, and the last way is the best way in c. It also runs faster using less memory. The path(s) of execution should be well known - if they aren't, your code is bad - after all, programs are deterministic. Even threaded or interrupt-driven programs.
One way to put a lid on this sort of behavior is to remove anonymity. It would solve a lot of problems, and it doesn't interfere with freedom of speech - you can still say what you want, you just have to own it, same as if you stood up in the public square and said the same things.
And then to ask the same question that's been asked about the banks - why not a single conviction for the law-breakers.
The likelihood is that he will be convicted. Jury nullification, while a possibility, really depends on the jury and what they're allowed to hear.
Her offense: “It’s time,” she said, “for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”
What h8ters turned it into:
“It is definitely not time for ‘all the gay people’ and ‘all the people of color’ to set aside their own battle for equality in order to fight for straight, white women now,” thundered Amanda Marcotte in a piece for Slate titled, “Patricia Arquette’s Feminism: Only for White Women.”
Nowhere did she say that those other battles should be set aside. And yet, as you pointed out, people with an agenda to make money and engage in self-promotion are there right out of the gate.
H8ters gotta hate, but that's no excuse for everyone else to turn off the grey matter :-)
In my piece defending Hannan from those accusing him of murder, I had quoted a well-known transgender activist who, parting with many of her fellow transsexuals, told me that Hannan “did a good job” for “follow[ing] a mystery.” But none of this mattered. I was summarily derided for my “privilege,” inherent in the fact, I was repeatedly told, of my being white and gay, and ordered to prostrate myself before, and apologize to, the victimized trans community at large. On Twitter, The Nation’s sports columnist asked aloud if there were “any defenseless person you won’t shit on,” before Jew-baiting me for good measure, rhetorically asking, “if you could write an article destroying a transgender child in Gaza, would that make your day, month, or year?” (Trans, if you haven’t yet figured it out, beats gay and Jew.)
I agree with the author. Hannan followed the facts. Big deal. It's the same with Briana Wu, who continues a long line of what I call overdoing it when it comes to being an m2f transsexual (while denying it). Many, when we shed the pretense of what we are not, instead of just "being who we are", put on an exaggerated pretense of what we believe society sees as a woman - right down to becoming hyper-feminists as a way to assert that we really are women.
For some, it's a temporary state; for others, it becomes a form of misandry and a way to beat up on critics by invoking political correctness. And, of course, if they can get your 15 minutes of fame by being a professional victim ...
I agree with the last paragraph. Then again, I've been calling it "anti-social media" since the turn of the century, so what do I know :-)
You're basing your arguments on a MOVIE??? Come on, you can do better than that.
Guess you forgot about the release of the secret pentagon papers ...
Prosecution: 'You leaked classified info."
Prosecution witness: 'You leaked classified info."
Defense "No I didn't. Nothing I allegedly leaked was classified at the time. Prove otherwise."
But you still have to start with the data. Algorithms by themselves are meaningless. The data structure can be modified to accommodate more efficient algorithms, but without the original data structures, you've no real place to start, whether it's a census database or the attributes of a character in an RPG.
And the problem with making your data too tightly coupled to the algorithms is that because they are now more tightly coupled, you might find yourself in a jam when changes have to be made to the data structures.
They should NOT be "so tightly bound together that you can't DO them separately".
And that's why it's the defense's job to get the facts before the jury and let them decide if his acts were justified - no need to claim his acts were justified - just enough facts to leave a really bad taste in at least one juror's mouth.
It's why the EU right to have old, irrelevant search results is so important. Society has to forgive and forget, otherwise lives are ruined by one or two mistakes. It's great that machines remember everything for us, but also terrible.
I would say it's the opposite - that if everyone has their mistakes on parade, then it' makes it easier for others can admit that they too aren't perfect. Instead of trying to appear what we're not, we should be more interested in being who we are, warts and all, and encouraging others to do the same.
It wasn't that long ago that a woman who was raped was considered "ruined for life." By speaking out about it instead of trying to hide it, that is no longer the case. Same with gays and lesbians that used to have to hide in the closet. We can't go on wasting lives with some false idea that if you can get people to forget about it, you don't have to deal with it.
We simply can't advance, either as individuals or a society, if we actively "forget" anything that society labels a "mistake." Imagine a world where everyone can't throw rocks because everyone else knows the rock-throwers are also not so perfect.
Oh wait, every video that you make featuring your li'l buddy Timmyboy is a loser edit. Dice, PLEASE fire these guys. Timmyboy is still very proud of his "journalism degree." He JUST DOESN'T GET IT.
The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that. Also, if they edit submissions too much "for clarity" the submitter will complain that's not what they wrote. So what are you going to do?
People were originally upset when SciAm started publishing articles about things like the politics behind nuclear weapons control back in (IIRC) the '80s. I was one of them, but one day there was one that caught my attention, was interesting, etc. - so I stopped my complaining.
Sure, some of the articles posted are of low quality ... I regularly up-vote them if they're stupidity like the Ask Slashdot "I heard there was money in app development" / "How can I interest my 2-year-old in programming" / etc., because they ARE stupid, but if they don't see the light of day, we'll never get to give the poster (and others with similar bad/naive ideas) a whack with the ol' clue-by-four. Not everything posted should agree with your world view or what you consider is acceptable news.
Is there a point here?
Only if you're a fan of Faux News.
Sounds good in theory, but the deep pockets can still push an inventor into bankruptcy by challenging a patent. This doesn't protect the little guy at all.
That's because they've finally grasped the concept of "job security for coders 101."
This is the whole problem with "narrow and deep" vs "wide and shallow." Too deep a hierarchy is just bad practice.
What do you mean by "memory architecture"? I am willing to suspend my disbelief that someone who believes they have directly communicated with a metaphysical entity couldn't give me advice concerning programming.
From the context, I gather that maybe what he meant to say was "data structures"?
The framing strongly suggests that it is a simple issue.
It is a simple issue - "this 'study' is crap."
... and removing duplicate code, turning some code into a reusable library that can be used in other projects, de-obfuscating "cute" code that you wrote in a midnight caffeine-fueled "in the zone" blur of clarity (you know this is not a contradiction if you've been there), calling an existing library that you found does the same job as your code but is more flexible, adding cross-platform #ifdefs, etc.