As a PHP developer at the time, I also dispute the claim that register globals was "just how you did things", in 2003.
Nah, thinking back some more... At least one job did still use PHP 3 in 2002... So, ya, I'll retract this statement. Many people did still use it, and 4.2.0...
Ummm... No. WordPress was first written in PHP3. Before it was even called "register globals". Back when that was just how you did things.
Wordpress 0.7 was first released in 2003. Register globals was first disabled in PHP 4.2 in 2002. So, yes, register globals was deprecated (though it did not throw a warning until later) before Wordpress was released. As PHP 4.0 was released in 2000, a full 3 years before Wordpress, I even question the PHP3 claim (well, I question their reasoning for developing a new product on PHP 3).
As a PHP developer at the time, I also dispute the claim that register globals was "just how you did things", in 2003.
It only hinders innovation at companies too small to make these deals. Remember that next time you hear we need patents to protect the mythical lone inventor.
The system hinders innovation at Google, Verizon, and every other tech company as well. Verizon's public statement starts right at the top with
Verizon Signs Patent Licensing Deal with Google to Promote Innovation
then continues with
But in high-tech industries like ours, the patent system can be exploited to get in the way of innovation.
Verizon believes that even high-tech giants like themselves are hindered by the system. Hence the deal. I agree that small-time inventors are hurt more as they are unable to strike these deals, but that does not mean the system only hinders them.... else there would be no need for this deal.
Absolutely you bet! Just the other day I stopped at H&R Block to get some advice on reducing my liability (TAX liability lol!), but they couldn't answer my questions. I'll pose them here in the hopes that you or somebody else can help.
If I hold the drugs for a year, do I pay capital gains on the increased value as a commodity? If the value goes down, do I get to deduct the loss? Do I get to deduct the depreciation of my submarine? As I require all my sales reps to wear a blue flag on the left side and provide it myself, could I reduce my tax burden by investing in a handkerchief factory? Can I deduct the cost of the "first one" I offer to all new customers?
That is just me! How about my sales representatives? Do they get to deduct the cost of the baking soda they cut the coke with? Or does that come out of their own pocket?
And now Obamacare is just making this harder! I'm going to have to cut back hours because I can't afford the health insurance costs!
This allows Microsoft (and any multi-national) additional power to exempt themselves from various US law by shopping around for favorable laws protecting their digital assets. I'm sure there is at least 1 small, poor, developing, (corrupt?) nation out there that would love to accept a few hundred million dollars to build a datacenter and pass a couple "fuck you America!" laws.
Though I also have to admit the court is not the place to prevent that. There are other ways to deal with this problem. Such as passing laws requiring US companies to submit to this and other US court orders as if all assets were stored in the US as long as US persons have electronic access to those assets. Let the company deal with the trouble of complying with Ireland's laws at the same time as US law (maybe by keeping US customer data in the US and European customer data in Europe)... or split up so they can lawfully and truthfully state "Sorry, Microsoft Corp does not control Microsoft Ireland, Ltd. We just do business with them."... and thus forgo their tax loopholes.
Yes, but putting your own personal convenience above the well being of others simply makes you an asshole.
So what does that make you?
Buying a PC so you can work & play conveniently while the lowly wretches that mined the heavy metals required to build it are dying in a ditch.
At least the residents in these communities can claim ignorance of your philosophy.:p
*everybody* chooses personal convenience over the wellbeing of others, every day, always.
So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
(chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).
You're right. They don't care about that.
But they do care about things like prescription habits (Your receiving & your doctor's prescribing), GSWs, abortions (Did you forget Republicans are still trying to ban those?), stem cell treatments, assisted suicide, plastic surgery, and any other medical procedure they're trying to restrict or ban, or they feel indicates criminal activity (too many chemical burns? Maybe you have a meth lab).
Just because you or I can't think of a way to abuse the data now, doesn't mean the Federal Government won't figure out a way to abuse you in the future, using the data. Yes there are legitimate reasons for the Feds to have the data, but unfortunately, as has been proven over, and over, and over again, they can't be trusted.
Changing a pronoun is not worth of developer resources. I would have reversed it too -- we don't need everyone's principled opinions infiltrating the codebase and starting problems between people's values and beliefs.
The thing is, the change was done by some third party. Rejecting it and justifying actually took *more* work than just accepting it.
THIS time. When the next 1,273 "single word in a comment" submissions come in to be reviewed, is the total time spent on them still 0? He is "not interested in trivial changes like that." Accepting one invites more.
1. Any and all laws can be twisted and abused. Your litmus test approves of only anarchy or automatons with no imagination.
2. The law is 200 years old. Its not new. *Eventually* seems to be a very long time in this case.
The law simply gives the courts some teeth to do what it needs to do. It is vague in what it allows, requiring reasonableness and interpretation, but that is the very basis of our government. The Constitution uses words like "reasonable" all over it, requiring the readers to think about what is in the best interest of society (or themselves if they're inclined that way).
By your standards of law making it seems our entire system of government and every law on the books, since they all use the vague Constitution as their backing and are therefore open to interpretation and abuse, are "bad".
This just goes to show that "shredding the Constitution" has been going on for a very long time. The feds pretty much started as soon as they possibly could.
There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
Except the OP & article misquoted the law (for click bait? Maybe, IANAL). But I have a feeling the rest of the sentence people are misquoting is relevant as well:
The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
Emphasis mine.
If another law or the Constitution does not allow the action, it cannot be granted via this law. The court order being discussed even specifically states the obvious and adjudicated limitations of the law:
t]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute
You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Apple and every other phone manufacturer however, is not you, and can be forced by this law to decrypt your phone, if possible and there is no other law preventing the court from ordering somebody to do that.
Personally, I don't like the idea of being forced to do anything., so this law angers me on that side... but my reasonable side does "think of the children" and can see the law being used responsibly. This specific application does, to me, seem a responsible use.
It does? I would have figured Facebook's past actions, the actions of their "partners", previous similar complaints, and Facebook's TOU would make it not only possible, but very probable, this woman's account is accurate.
Seriously, if you were starting a "social network" site, would you rather:
1. Spend thousands to millions of dollars advertising your site; wait for people to join; wait several years for enough people to join to make it "social"; or
2. Spend a few thousand dollars to sign up as a Facebook "partner" / advertiser and use the existing API to build your network from those hapless twits that still have Facebook accounts and think they're customers?
Occam's razor says you have never started a social network site.
I am a legal layman; but that is what struck me. We have an extradition treaty with the Kiwis. Based on our 'enthusiastic' diplomatic style it's probably even the one we wanted.
To assert that somebody currently in extradition proceedings is a 'fugitive' is either to claim that the terms of extradition of that country are total bullshit, or basically the same as saying that appealing a conviction is a subtype of prison escape attempt.
"Fugitive" is a term, not the law. The law allows judges to remove your right to use the courts if you so much as refuse to return to the US.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2466:
(1) after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for his apprehension, in order to avoid criminal prosecution—
(B) declines to enter or reenter the United States to submit to its jurisdiction;
So, yes, if you go to an extradition hearing, instead of hopping on a plane, a judge can immediately bar you from using the courts for any purpose.
IANAL... So I really don't know how this law passes the 1st Amendment...
Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Shift their responsibilities to the bomber and submarine forces. Land based missiles don't offer any benefit over the other two legs of the triad.
"Redundancy, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker on the planet, accept no substitutes."
Pretty much the only way to stop an ICBM from obliterating you is to stop it from launching. If it is in the air, you're already dead. 3 minutes into a launch, most ICBMs are higher than the maximum range of any SAM, but they're not even done climbing yet. Israel's Iron Dome claims 90% effectiveness at knocking down rockets. So assuming there is an equally effective system for hitting warheads dropped from orbit, you're still looking at 200-300 successful strikes from a full load... So you can still scrap your entire "top 200" bucket list.
To stop the missiles in Nebraska, that means trucking to the middle of the continent across Canada and/or the US. Bombers and submarines are in danger of getting knocked out long before they reach their firing positions.
Bombers & subs thus provide the only chance of "winning" a nuke war with first strikes, but silos in the middle of nowhere add the "guaranteed destruction" element.
You may have missed the bits which went without highlighting: "No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity"
Tax breaks are a "preference", and Ham's group is a "religious sect, society or denomination".
The tax break is not a preference for religion, it is a preference for tourist attractions. The breaks go to anybody building any tourist attraction of any kind. That doesn't mean religious people can't take advantage of it when building tourist attractions. Nor does it mean you can't build a religious based tourist attraction.
By your logic, priests can't get home loans because the interest is tax exempt. Wiccans can't visit state parks because taxpayer funds built them.. Or maybe you're saying that the State of Kentucky can't even have state parks because Wiccans revere nature... either way, you're wrong.
Anybody and everybody gets to take advantage of state parks and tax breaks, regardless of their religious affiliations.... without violating either the State or US Constitutions.
No doubt. Point being, like sci-fi authors getting kudos for predicting technology advances, political/law thriller authors should start getting the same for predicting what the government is doing today.
Yes.
"And as I was typing and working on questions for a Benghazi-related story, the data started wiping kind of at hyperspeed"
Not how someone with remote control over a computer would wipe data. Not deleting it in the fucking editor. A quick console deltree "My Documents/Bengazi" while the computer is idle is easier and less obvious to the user.
She almost certainly held down control and backspace by accident and blamed it on the government. Classic paranoid ideation.
The other option being: read the story.
Per her source, the deletion of data while she was using it was a warning. Warnings don't work that well when they're less obvious to the user.
(I think Tom Clancy actually invented that move originally).
Knowing tech, ya, her story sounds like fiction. But then again a few years ago, so did dragnet surveillance, warrant-less/trial-less asset seizures, and drones executing US Citizens without trials With stuff like that, the known illegal spying, secret courts, secret laws, and fighting terrorism for the sake of the children, who could have predicted most of what is going on these days besides the likes of Grisham & Clancy?
Slashdot Mirror
As a PHP developer at the time, I also dispute the claim that register globals was "just how you did things", in 2003.
Nah, thinking back some more... At least one job did still use PHP 3 in 2002... So, ya, I'll retract this statement. Many people did still use it, and 4.2.0...
Ummm... No. WordPress was first written in PHP3. Before it was even called "register globals". Back when that was just how you did things.
Wordpress 0.7 was first released in 2003. Register globals was first disabled in PHP 4.2 in 2002. So, yes, register globals was deprecated (though it did not throw a warning until later) before Wordpress was released. As PHP 4.0 was released in 2000, a full 3 years before Wordpress, I even question the PHP3 claim (well, I question their reasoning for developing a new product on PHP 3).
As a PHP developer at the time, I also dispute the claim that register globals was "just how you did things", in 2003.
22percent of PHP installs are secure???
The PHP install is secure.
That does not include the code being executed by PHP... just PHP itself.
nt
"he" who?
Tyson is agnostic. He has been questioned and quoted several times on the topic.
That patents are hindering innovation.
It only hinders innovation at companies too small to make these deals. Remember that next time you hear we need patents to protect the mythical lone inventor.
The system hinders innovation at Google, Verizon, and every other tech company as well. Verizon's public statement starts right at the top with
Verizon Signs Patent Licensing Deal with Google to Promote Innovation
then continues with
But in high-tech industries like ours, the patent system can be exploited to get in the way of innovation.
Verizon believes that even high-tech giants like themselves are hindered by the system. Hence the deal. I agree that small-time inventors are hurt more as they are unable to strike these deals, but that does not mean the system only hinders them.... else there would be no need for this deal.
Case closed.
Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?
Absolutely you bet! Just the other day I stopped at H&R Block to get some advice on reducing my liability (TAX liability lol!), but they couldn't answer my questions. I'll pose them here in the hopes that you or somebody else can help.
If I hold the drugs for a year, do I pay capital gains on the increased value as a commodity? If the value goes down, do I get to deduct the loss? Do I get to deduct the depreciation of my submarine? As I require all my sales reps to wear a blue flag on the left side and provide it myself, could I reduce my tax burden by investing in a handkerchief factory? Can I deduct the cost of the "first one" I offer to all new customers?
That is just me! How about my sales representatives? Do they get to deduct the cost of the baking soda they cut the coke with? Or does that come out of their own pocket?
And now Obamacare is just making this harder! I'm going to have to cut back hours because I can't afford the health insurance costs!
Wayne Brady fool. He even has the 2nd whitest name in television history!
This allows Microsoft (and any multi-national) additional power to exempt themselves from various US law by shopping around for favorable laws protecting their digital assets. I'm sure there is at least 1 small, poor, developing, (corrupt?) nation out there that would love to accept a few hundred million dollars to build a datacenter and pass a couple "fuck you America!" laws.
Though I also have to admit the court is not the place to prevent that. There are other ways to deal with this problem. Such as passing laws requiring US companies to submit to this and other US court orders as if all assets were stored in the US as long as US persons have electronic access to those assets. Let the company deal with the trouble of complying with Ireland's laws at the same time as US law (maybe by keeping US customer data in the US and European customer data in Europe)... or split up so they can lawfully and truthfully state "Sorry, Microsoft Corp does not control Microsoft Ireland, Ltd. We just do business with them."... and thus forgo their tax loopholes.
Yes, but putting your own personal convenience above the well being of others simply makes you an asshole.
So what does that make you?
Buying a PC so you can work & play conveniently while the lowly wretches that mined the heavy metals required to build it are dying in a ditch.
At least the residents in these communities can claim ignorance of your philosophy. :p
*everybody* chooses personal convenience over the wellbeing of others, every day, always.
So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
(chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).
You're right. They don't care about that.
But they do care about things like prescription habits (Your receiving & your doctor's prescribing), GSWs, abortions (Did you forget Republicans are still trying to ban those?), stem cell treatments, assisted suicide, plastic surgery, and any other medical procedure they're trying to restrict or ban, or they feel indicates criminal activity (too many chemical burns? Maybe you have a meth lab).
Just because you or I can't think of a way to abuse the data now, doesn't mean the Federal Government won't figure out a way to abuse you in the future, using the data. Yes there are legitimate reasons for the Feds to have the data, but unfortunately, as has been proven over, and over, and over again, they can't be trusted.
I hear it's a gas, but be decisive - once you've made a bookingwald it's difficult to auswitch.
Jew makin some horrible puns. Anne Frank-ly, I don't appreciate them.
Changing a pronoun is not worth of developer resources. I would have reversed it too -- we don't need everyone's principled opinions infiltrating the codebase and starting problems between people's values and beliefs.
The thing is, the change was done by some third party. Rejecting it and justifying actually took *more* work than just accepting it.
THIS time. When the next 1,273 "single word in a comment" submissions come in to be reviewed, is the total time spent on them still 0? He is "not interested in trivial changes like that." Accepting one invites more.
1. Any and all laws can be twisted and abused. Your litmus test approves of only anarchy or automatons with no imagination.
2. The law is 200 years old. Its not new. *Eventually* seems to be a very long time in this case.
The law simply gives the courts some teeth to do what it needs to do. It is vague in what it allows, requiring reasonableness and interpretation, but that is the very basis of our government. The Constitution uses words like "reasonable" all over it, requiring the readers to think about what is in the best interest of society (or themselves if they're inclined that way).
By your standards of law making it seems our entire system of government and every law on the books, since they all use the vague Constitution as their backing and are therefore open to interpretation and abuse, are "bad".
This just goes to show that "shredding the Constitution" has been going on for a very long time. The feds pretty much started as soon as they possibly could.
There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
Except the OP & article misquoted the law (for click bait? Maybe, IANAL). But I have a feeling the rest of the sentence people are misquoting is relevant as well:
The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
Emphasis mine.
If another law or the Constitution does not allow the action, it cannot be granted via this law. The court order being discussed even specifically states the obvious and adjudicated limitations of the law:
t]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute
You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Apple and every other phone manufacturer however, is not you, and can be forced by this law to decrypt your phone, if possible and there is no other law preventing the court from ordering somebody to do that.
Personally, I don't like the idea of being forced to do anything., so this law angers me on that side... but my reasonable side does "think of the children" and can see the law being used responsibly. This specific application does, to me, seem a responsible use.
Subject sums it up really.
It does? I would have figured Facebook's past actions, the actions of their "partners", previous similar complaints, and Facebook's TOU would make it not only possible, but very probable, this woman's account is accurate.
Seriously, if you were starting a "social network" site, would you rather:
1. Spend thousands to millions of dollars advertising your site; wait for people to join; wait several years for enough people to join to make it "social"; or
2. Spend a few thousand dollars to sign up as a Facebook "partner" / advertiser and use the existing API to build your network from those hapless twits that still have Facebook accounts and think they're customers?
Occam's razor says you have never started a social network site.
I am a legal layman; but that is what struck me. We have an extradition treaty with the Kiwis. Based on our 'enthusiastic' diplomatic style it's probably even the one we wanted.
To assert that somebody currently in extradition proceedings is a 'fugitive' is either to claim that the terms of extradition of that country are total bullshit, or basically the same as saying that appealing a conviction is a subtype of prison escape attempt.
"Fugitive" is a term, not the law. The law allows judges to remove your right to use the courts if you so much as refuse to return to the US.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2466:
(1) after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for his apprehension, in order to avoid criminal prosecution—
(B) declines to enter or reenter the United States to submit to its jurisdiction;
So, yes, if you go to an extradition hearing, instead of hopping on a plane, a judge can immediately bar you from using the courts for any purpose.
IANAL... So I really don't know how this law passes the 1st Amendment...
Congress shall make no law... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Just because we did not ratify it, does not mean that we did not actually honor it.
Right.
And yet, America has met the terms of the Kyoto agreement.
Wrong. Seriously, why do you think that?
Wikipedia:
The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Our emissions have gone up since then. We're now higher than our 1990 levels. http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
Most of the time, their ham-fisted copy/paste code doesn't even do what the assignment requires.
So you're saying the cheaters are preparing for the real world!
Shift their responsibilities to the bomber and submarine forces. Land based missiles don't offer any benefit over the other two legs of the triad.
"Redundancy, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker on the planet, accept no substitutes."
Pretty much the only way to stop an ICBM from obliterating you is to stop it from launching. If it is in the air, you're already dead. 3 minutes into a launch, most ICBMs are higher than the maximum range of any SAM, but they're not even done climbing yet. Israel's Iron Dome claims 90% effectiveness at knocking down rockets. So assuming there is an equally effective system for hitting warheads dropped from orbit, you're still looking at 200-300 successful strikes from a full load... So you can still scrap your entire "top 200" bucket list.
To stop the missiles in Nebraska, that means trucking to the middle of the continent across Canada and/or the US. Bombers and submarines are in danger of getting knocked out long before they reach their firing positions.
Bombers & subs thus provide the only chance of "winning" a nuke war with first strikes, but silos in the middle of nowhere add the "guaranteed destruction" element.
["who're" is a fun word...]
I love whores
I hate punctuation
You may have missed the bits which went without highlighting: "No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity"
Tax breaks are a "preference", and Ham's group is a "religious sect, society or denomination".
The tax break is not a preference for religion, it is a preference for tourist attractions. The breaks go to anybody building any tourist attraction of any kind. That doesn't mean religious people can't take advantage of it when building tourist attractions. Nor does it mean you can't build a religious based tourist attraction.
By your logic, priests can't get home loans because the interest is tax exempt. Wiccans can't visit state parks because taxpayer funds built them.. Or maybe you're saying that the State of Kentucky can't even have state parks because Wiccans revere nature... either way, you're wrong.
Anybody and everybody gets to take advantage of state parks and tax breaks, regardless of their religious affiliations.... without violating either the State or US Constitutions.
No doubt. Point being, like sci-fi authors getting kudos for predicting technology advances, political/law thriller authors should start getting the same for predicting what the government is doing today.
Yes. "And as I was typing and working on questions for a Benghazi-related story, the data started wiping kind of at hyperspeed"
Not how someone with remote control over a computer would wipe data. Not deleting it in the fucking editor. A quick console deltree "My Documents/Bengazi" while the computer is idle is easier and less obvious to the user.
She almost certainly held down control and backspace by accident and blamed it on the government. Classic paranoid ideation.
The other option being: read the story.
Per her source, the deletion of data while she was using it was a warning. Warnings don't work that well when they're less obvious to the user. (I think Tom Clancy actually invented that move originally).
Knowing tech, ya, her story sounds like fiction. But then again a few years ago, so did dragnet surveillance, warrant-less/trial-less asset seizures, and drones executing US Citizens without trials With stuff like that, the known illegal spying, secret courts, secret laws, and fighting terrorism for the sake of the children, who could have predicted most of what is going on these days besides the likes of Grisham & Clancy?