I can see both sides, really, but I don't think a default password even implies you aren't meant to go in. It means the owner has made exactly zero effort to secure it. Zero. Now consider the real world equivalent of no security effort whatsoever: a closed, unlocked door at best.
One thing I hate is the current perception that, in law, the digital world should have more protection than the physical one. The presumption of freedom should triumph in both realms.
All the images are from servers within the.cn tld, which is clearly what google has done, or been told to do. So in that I think you are right: Google is not strictly at fault.
But the lack of images is nothing to with cultural significance. It's because anyone posting the images we know about is likely to be imprisoned. From stuff I have read, it appears that the massacre is still a huge secret over there. Many people know that/something/ happened, but very few people know what.
I'd like to see a worldwide campaign to tell the Chinese about it. Perhaps a web site that enabled you to print a letter to a random address in China. Seal and send, for 50c. Now get a thousand people a day doing it...
I'm not sure I would even characterise someone who entered a system that still had the default password as a criminal. It's like leaving a door open and then complaining someone came in. At best you could call it trespass (which isn't criminal).
Personally I'd get mad with the fuckwit who didn't change the password first.
As I said to the other bloke - I meant street prostitutes as per those in GTA who hook on the street corners and take all the risks of violent assault. Given the discussion is about GTA I thought it was obvious I didn't mean ones who work in nice safe brothels.
I agree, but feel the need to make a political point about the UK 7/7 bombings: we only lost 50 people. We lose more every day to vehicle accidents in the home counties alone. We'd be better off spending the billions on health and road safety improvements and ignoring terrorists - and we'd be making a fantastic statement to them too.
Just ask yourself this: Did any female, ever, wake up in the morning and think 'Prostitution... that's a good idea'.
Or did each and every single one of them end up in the situation where there was no other choice that they could think of.
Every crack-head on a street corner was once someone's little girl in a party dress, and while they may've made bad choices it isn't OK for you to decide they don't count.
Indeed - God instructs his followers to break his commandment repeatedly. That's the bit I don't understand, and the bit I am trying to get someone to explain to me.
So far, apparently, all I have managed is to annoy people, which, while amusing (as people getting cross with me because they can't explain what they believe in), doesn't help.
I'm not thinking about a current, real situation. I'm simply wondering how the jewish, christian and islamic communities explain that bit in the pentateuch where God says "Don't kill... now kill all the Canaanites".
There must be an explanation of how that works, but so far I haven't really heard one. It always struck me that God is a hypocrite, but this tends to go down badly with believers!
The spaniards bit is because I have heard people explain the 10C as rules for the tribe of Israel only, and that the murder clause only applied to Israelites, so killing Canaanites was fine.
So, to precis your post, we may not kill, but God can, although sometimes he chooses not to and tells us to kill people for him. God alone knows why. OK. Now I just need to know how we tell the people who can really hear God (Moses - we assume!) from those who are just mad, and I'm sorted.
You're telling me you don't know what that particular commandment means. You don't know what god means by 'thou shalt not kill/murder', only what is legal in human terms.
Yes, pavement is for people, road is for vehicles, including bikes.
Having been to the states, I think the reason your bikes go on the sidewalk is because your sidewalks/pavements are much bigger than ours, which are often only a few feet wide.
One further bit: we (fairly) often have cycle-paths - separate lanes on the road, specifically for bikes to ensure they are safe. (There was one right next to where the incident I described, which is why I bothered to be sarcastic.)
But I've never had anyone who believes in God explain to me why he is allowed to kill, order killings, destroy people's lives. Lot's wife, killed for looking back at her home, is that OK? Were all the Canaanites deserving of death - why? What the fuck was He playing at with Job? It's just bad and wrong.
Personally, I believe that all religions are no better than cults - just a bunch of people arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.
So if Bush says kill, and congress votes for it, it's OK in the eyes of God.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
Now, when General Pinochet, of the lawful (if dictatorial) government of Chile, ordered all those genocidal attacks, that was OK in the eyes of God too...?
Firstly, judgement on Job was pretty tough, and he did nothing wrong at all. God just fucked him over to prove a point.
Secondly, you haven't even addressed the question of whether or not killing is/was OK, you've just moved the conversation to WWJD!
Either we're not allowed to, and God is (the 'god said to do it' defence, which makes him a bit of a hypocrit to me), or everyone is allowed to so long as the victim is not of the same tribe (the 'original hebrew' explanation, which means I can go kill spaniards if I like), or everyone can so long as it's war (the 'war killing isn't murder' defence, which sadly doesn't explain how we or God define war).
The NT is irrelevent here because I want to know what the situation was during the exodus. Which one of the above (or any other analysis) was it?
So how about I decide I am at war with, say Spain? Can I go and kill Spaniards?
Last time I looked, there's no definition of 'war' in the Bible. So how do you work your rules? Wurely the guy that ordered the soldier to kill has murder on his hands?
Either that, or God's a hypocrite, take your pick.
In order for this to help us now, I need to understand the difference between 'murder' and 'kill'. It sounds to me as though, so long as the person I want to kill isn't in my tribe, I can go right ahead with Yahweh/Allah/God's blessing!
I always wonder about people like you. I mean, you say you don't socialise with computer people, but you have a/. account and then you bother to post with it.
Patterns are nothing to do with languages. Patterns are not meant to fix problems in languages, they are conceptual repeating patterns, like 'the need to store', 'the need to display', 'the need to pass data'.
If your language of choice happens to implement one of these languages (roughly like struct or Object for the DTO pattern), then so much the better.
Slashdot Mirror
Also written as...
"If the brain were simple enough for us to understand, we'd be so simple we couldn't"
Justin,
No: because he told us not to kill then told us to kill.
If he did it himself, I'd accept your point.
Justin.
I can see both sides, really, but I don't think a default password even implies you aren't meant to go in. It means the owner has made exactly zero effort to secure it. Zero. Now consider the real world equivalent of no security effort whatsoever: a closed, unlocked door at best.
One thing I hate is the current perception that, in law, the digital world should have more protection than the physical one. The presumption of freedom should triumph in both realms.
Justin.
God I wish we could edit our replies after posting. See my other replies.
As I thought was obvious, I was referring to the kind of prostitutes the OP was clearly referring to. Like the ones in GTA.
Sigh.
J.
All the images are from servers within the .cn tld, which is clearly what google has done, or been told to do. So in that I think you are right: Google is not strictly at fault.
/something/ happened, but very few people know what.
But the lack of images is nothing to with cultural significance. It's because anyone posting the images we know about is likely to be imprisoned. From stuff I have read, it appears that the massacre is still a huge secret over there. Many people know that
I'd like to see a worldwide campaign to tell the Chinese about it. Perhaps a web site that enabled you to print a letter to a random address in China. Seal and send, for 50c. Now get a thousand people a day doing it...
Justin.
I'm not sure I would even characterise someone who entered a system that still had the default password as a criminal. It's like leaving a door open and then complaining someone came in. At best you could call it trespass (which isn't criminal).
Personally I'd get mad with the fuckwit who didn't change the password first.
Justin.
As I said to the other bloke - I meant street prostitutes as per those in GTA who hook on the street corners and take all the risks of violent assault. Given the discussion is about GTA I thought it was obvious I didn't mean ones who work in nice safe brothels.
J.
Sorry - should've said "Street prostitute".
J.
I agree, but feel the need to make a political point about the UK 7/7 bombings: we only lost 50 people. We lose more every day to vehicle accidents in the home counties alone. We'd be better off spending the billions on health and road safety improvements and ignoring terrorists - and we'd be making a fantastic statement to them too.
Justin.
Just ask yourself this: Did any female, ever, wake up in the morning and think 'Prostitution... that's a good idea'.
Or did each and every single one of them end up in the situation where there was no other choice that they could think of.
Every crack-head on a street corner was once someone's little girl in a party dress, and while they may've made bad choices it isn't OK for you to decide they don't count.
Justin.
So far, apparently, all I have managed is to annoy people, which, while amusing (as people getting cross with me because they can't explain what they believe in), doesn't help.
Justin.
I'm not thinking about a current, real situation. I'm simply wondering how the jewish, christian and islamic communities explain that bit in the pentateuch where God says "Don't kill... now kill all the Canaanites".
There must be an explanation of how that works, but so far I haven't really heard one. It always struck me that God is a hypocrite, but this tends to go down badly with believers!
J.
The spaniards bit is because I have heard people explain the 10C as rules for the tribe of Israel only, and that the murder clause only applied to Israelites, so killing Canaanites was fine.
So, to precis your post, we may not kill, but God can, although sometimes he chooses not to and tells us to kill people for him. God alone knows why. OK. Now I just need to know how we tell the people who can really hear God (Moses - we assume!) from those who are just mad, and I'm sorted.
Justin.
You're telling me you don't know what that particular commandment means. You don't know what god means by 'thou shalt not kill/murder', only what is legal in human terms.
Oh, that's the same as me then.
J.
But these guys weren't going to the afterlife - they were going to hell because they weren't jewish.
Still sounds a bit bastardish to me...
Justin.
Yes, pavement is for people, road is for vehicles, including bikes.
Having been to the states, I think the reason your bikes go on the sidewalk is because your sidewalks/pavements are much bigger than ours, which are often only a few feet wide.
One further bit: we (fairly) often have cycle-paths - separate lanes on the road, specifically for bikes to ensure they are safe. (There was one right next to where the incident I described, which is why I bothered to be sarcastic.)
Justin.
It's not flamebait - quite.
But I've never had anyone who believes in God explain to me why he is allowed to kill, order killings, destroy people's lives. Lot's wife, killed for looking back at her home, is that OK? Were all the Canaanites deserving of death - why? What the fuck was He playing at with Job? It's just bad and wrong.
Personally, I believe that all religions are no better than cults - just a bunch of people arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.
Justin.
So if Bush says kill, and congress votes for it, it's OK in the eyes of God.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
Now, when General Pinochet, of the lawful (if dictatorial) government of Chile, ordered all those genocidal attacks, that was OK in the eyes of God too...?
Justin.
Firstly, judgement on Job was pretty tough, and he did nothing wrong at all. God just fucked him over to prove a point.
Secondly, you haven't even addressed the question of whether or not killing is/was OK, you've just moved the conversation to WWJD!
Either we're not allowed to, and God is (the 'god said to do it' defence, which makes him a bit of a hypocrit to me), or everyone is allowed to so long as the victim is not of the same tribe (the 'original hebrew' explanation, which means I can go kill spaniards if I like), or everyone can so long as it's war (the 'war killing isn't murder' defence, which sadly doesn't explain how we or God define war).
The NT is irrelevent here because I want to know what the situation was during the exodus. Which one of the above (or any other analysis) was it?
J.
So how about I decide I am at war with, say Spain? Can I go and kill Spaniards?
Last time I looked, there's no definition of 'war' in the Bible. So how do you work your rules? Wurely the guy that ordered the soldier to kill has murder on his hands?
Either that, or God's a hypocrite, take your pick.
Justin.
In order for this to help us now, I need to understand the difference between 'murder' and 'kill'. It sounds to me as though, so long as the person I want to kill isn't in my tribe, I can go right ahead with Yahweh/Allah/God's blessing!
Justin.
I always wonder about people like you. I mean, you say you don't socialise with computer people, but you have a /. account and then you bother to post with it.
You're weird.
Justin.
I predicted there'd be a WINE expert along to point out the gross over-simplification. If you can help with that, go right ahead...
Justin.
Total Arse.
Patterns are nothing to do with languages. Patterns are not meant to fix problems in languages, they are conceptual repeating patterns, like 'the need to store', 'the need to display', 'the need to pass data'.
If your language of choice happens to implement one of these languages (roughly like struct or Object for the DTO pattern), then so much the better.
Justin.
Actually, that's PTT - Push-To-Talk ;-)