I'm so glad that some people pointed this out, I have directly addressed your concerns in an emergency update post above. Feel free to read it as if it was addressed directly to you.
In the future, I will strive to increase the technical accuracy of any one line quips. I promise I'll get to it, right after I rewind my DVD's before returning them to the video store.
It has been brought to my attention that guns are not illegal, therefore I need to issue an emergency update to my last message.
So, for now, until proper studies are done l will change the statement:
'Like drugs and guns, which we now have none of.'
to
Like unprescribed narcotics and types of guns that are not legal without a permit in some jurisdictions, of which there is a bustling underground criminal economy, which is why making devices like the above illegal may not have a remediable effect on the problem listed in the original story.
I'll follow up with a list of sources later on, I do hope I get an A+ on this paper.
PS: You are an idiot.
PPS: Since I didn't actually sign the message, the PS above isn't really a PS and shouldn't be viewed as one for the purpose of proper letter writing standards. Your mental abilities, however may still lack, and my further suggestion of 'go play in traffic' should be viewed as a colorful metaphor and not as an actual request complete with directions to the nearest Interstate highway.
I find it interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) that Wikipedia, which was supposed to be open for everyone, and always seemed to represent freedom, democracy, etc. now has a "secret police" system. There are a group of editors there who can just make pages... disappear. The logs are hidden from everyone (even the admins). It's like those pages just never existed.
I always wondered what type of chaos there would be if everyone who has ever had an article deleted on Wikipedia just went and added them back in. All at the same time.
Whatever the current group of morons at Wikipedia decide isn't notable.
What I was saying is that the end user should decide the level of reliability they want. I browse Slashdot at -1. I like it. Why can't I browse Wikipedia at -1?
Articles that are not verified or not notable can go into a second tier where they have to be searched for by specifically requesting second tier access.
As it stands now, I've seen articles deleted because their sources have started falling off the net. This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.
Most of them involve going to the people responsible for the crime (or their superiors, who will take the blame), reporting it to them and expecting something good to come from it.
Again, I'm not saying what he did was right, I do not have all the facts and can not come to a conclusion or opinion.
I disagree, if you have clear evidence of a crime, you are obligated to disclose that information. If not by US law, then by the 'be a fucking human being' law. Let the courts sort it out later.
I have not read the leaked documents, so I can't comment about how many, if any, fall under the above.
Say I write a story about a young JRR Tolkien meeting Mark Twain and HG Wells. They spend a day playing poker, discussing philosophy, writing and language.
Now, that would fall under what?
Could have happened. Would be an interesting story too.
Most importantly, I have every right to write that story.
Of course, I have no creative writing skills, so I'm going to spare the world the pain of me writing fiction.
Shouldn't all 'historical fiction' at least require the permission of the persons involved (or the people/institution representing that person) ? I mean, what makes you think that *you* have the right to include 'real' people into your fake fictional works ? Really ?
If they're alive, yes, dead no.
It's the same way Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure had Freud and Lincoln as characters.
As for 'people and institutions' representing someone who died many years ago just to make money off them, well, fuck em.
Well, I imagine people don't make posts on Slashdot pretending they're competing for a job that doesn't exist. Some of us enjoy the fact we're not forced into use proper management-speak on a site like this, and even may use use slang terms.
You are right, I should have used a car analogy thrown in with Linsux, Crapple and the M$, because it makes me look smart.
BTW if I was the interviewer, I'd go with the guy that actually KNEW the most and seemed to be a good fit for the team, not the guy that uses pretty words. People that feel the need to correct other people's grammer would probably NOT fit the team.
You would hire someone, in a company, to support your critical network infrastructure, who talks like an idiot, because you think they know more? The term 'well rounded' comes to mind.
Let's assume you have two people competing for a job. One person is using terms like 'management across Linux and Windows systems'. You have another person, talking about 'running the Windoze and Linux Boxen'.
Although I suppose it would be a case of mixed feelings if you find your kid has managed to locate a camera to surreptitiously record the password, and ran a side-channel attack on the keyfob.
*Sniff*... Junior is growing up so fast. I was twice that age when I cracked my first system.
What are we preventing, exactly? That some big ISP might charge some big media company extra money?
Or that some big ISP might charge some small company extra money.
Or Bloggers.
Or Hobbyists.
Or their end users if they want access to sites not on the approved peer list.
But of course, you could always go to another ISP, right? Oh no... only the Cable and Telcos have high speed access, and they both seem to have the same prices and problems.
Well, you could always run your own ISP and put your own cables in... oh no, you can't, because they have the only contracts with the city to lay cables.
Wireless! yes, you can run a wISP! and...oh, no open frequencies?
Well, there's always dial up, because nothing is better than 56k, oh they're preventing that? 33, no? 28.8.. got it. 28.8, and you get to pay the phone company per minute for your call.
Why not wait until there's a real problem before bringing the force of a corrupt and inept bureaucracy to bear?
So, an ounce of prevention is a waste of time?
I'll make a deal: First, open up EVERY right of way, roadway, and utility access in every city and town in the US to any ISP that wants access. Second, open up every frequency for wireless access to everyone. Then you can kill net neutrality.
That would mean a chaotic mess of wires and non stop opening up of roadbeds to lay and fix cables. You won't be able to drive or walk down any city street. It would also stop cell phones and GPS's from working.
Communication infrastructure is a limited resource. Limited resources must be regulated properly or they will be abused. Phone and Cable companies are granted access to this limited resource to put their own cables and run their own cell towers to benefit my life first, not theirs. They have a grant from the people to do business, and they either follow our rules or they lose access.
I base my statement on observations through out my entire life, everything Ive read, everything Ive experienced.
And you still came up with the statements 'most honest and intelligent people are left leaning' and 'Republicans are now either Neo-cons, Tea-party or simply bat-shit crazy religious fanatics'?
Try to be constructive instead of an asshat.
Fine, you're an idiot, but you mean well, if you stop looking at the world with an us vs them attitude, you may become a better person one day.
Incorrect, left leaning people are lazy and put form over substance. They don't understand the consequences of doing something because it feels good instead of being good.
Really? All of them? 100%? Amazing.
Hmm, if only there was a word for what you are doing, we could call it pre something, hmm, how about judging.
Google is and excellent example with their vision statement: Do no evil which means nothing since they are in the search/technology business.
Well, except that's not their vision statement, it's not even their informal motto. (It is close to it though)
But it sounds good, especially if you keep repeating it using your 640K is enough computer on your Al Gore created Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG THANK YOU!
I'm so glad that some people pointed this out, I have directly addressed your concerns in an emergency update post above. Feel free to read it as if it was addressed directly to you.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2027768&cid=35421260
In the future, I will strive to increase the technical accuracy of any one line quips. I promise I'll get to it, right after I rewind my DVD's before returning them to the video store.
but guns are not illegal
It has been brought to my attention that guns are not illegal, therefore I need to issue an emergency update to my last message.
So, for now, until proper studies are done l will change the statement:
'Like drugs and guns, which we now have none of.'
to
Like unprescribed narcotics and types of guns that are not legal without a permit in some jurisdictions, of which there is a bustling underground criminal economy, which is why making devices like the above illegal may not have a remediable effect on the problem listed in the original story.
I'll follow up with a list of sources later on, I do hope I get an A+ on this paper.
PS: You are an idiot.
PPS: Since I didn't actually sign the message, the PS above isn't really a PS and shouldn't be viewed as one for the purpose of proper letter writing standards. Your mental abilities, however may still lack, and my further suggestion of 'go play in traffic' should be viewed as a colorful metaphor and not as an actual request complete with directions to the nearest Interstate highway.
I find it interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) that Wikipedia, which was supposed to be open for everyone, and always seemed to represent freedom, democracy, etc. now has a "secret police" system. There are a group of editors there who can just make pages... disappear. The logs are hidden from everyone (even the admins).
It's like those pages just never existed.
I always wondered what type of chaos there would be if everyone who has ever had an article deleted on Wikipedia just went and added them back in. All at the same time.
Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.
Well, that's 2 things they're not good for now:
1. Reliable information.
2. Challenging corporations.
However, they do excel at wasting my time and deleting things. So, it does make up for it in some way, I think.
(Technical): ...which is why they are illegal in nearly every regulatory environment.
Like drugs and guns, which we now have none of.
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with?
If you did it? Harassment and stalking.
If the FBI did it, and it was warranted , nothing. If the FBI did it, and it was unwarranted , nothing, after a very public lawsuit that gets settled.
Define "not notable"
Whatever the current group of morons at Wikipedia decide isn't notable.
What I was saying is that the end user should decide the level of reliability they want. I browse Slashdot at -1. I like it. Why can't I browse Wikipedia at -1?
Wikipedia needs a better moderation system.
Articles that are not verified or not notable can go into a second tier where they have to be searched for by specifically requesting second tier access.
As it stands now, I've seen articles deleted because their sources have started falling off the net. This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.
Most of them involve going to the people responsible for the crime (or their superiors, who will take the blame), reporting it to them and expecting something good to come from it.
Again, I'm not saying what he did was right, I do not have all the facts and can not come to a conclusion or opinion.
I disagree, if you have clear evidence of a crime, you are obligated to disclose that information. If not by US law, then by the 'be a fucking human being' law. Let the courts sort it out later.
I have not read the leaked documents, so I can't comment about how many, if any, fall under the above.
Say I write a story about a young JRR Tolkien meeting Mark Twain and HG Wells. They spend a day playing poker, discussing philosophy, writing and language.
Now, that would fall under what?
Could have happened. Would be an interesting story too.
Most importantly, I have every right to write that story.
Of course, I have no creative writing skills, so I'm going to spare the world the pain of me writing fiction.
Shouldn't all 'historical fiction' at least require the permission of the persons involved (or the people/institution representing that person) ? I mean, what makes you think that *you* have the right to include 'real' people into your fake fictional works ? Really ?
If they're alive, yes, dead no.
It's the same way Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure had Freud and Lincoln as characters.
As for 'people and institutions' representing someone who died many years ago just to make money off them, well, fuck em.
Well, I imagine people don't make posts on Slashdot pretending they're competing for a job that doesn't exist. Some of us enjoy the fact we're not forced into use proper management-speak on a site like this, and even may use use slang terms.
You are right, I should have used a car analogy thrown in with Linsux, Crapple and the M$, because it makes me look smart.
BTW if I was the interviewer, I'd go with the guy that actually KNEW the most and seemed to be a good fit for the team, not the guy that uses pretty words. People that feel the need to correct other people's grammer would probably NOT fit the team.
You would hire someone, in a company, to support your critical network infrastructure, who talks like an idiot, because you think they know more? The term 'well rounded' comes to mind.
Let's assume you have two people competing for a job. One person is using terms like 'management across Linux and Windows systems'. You have another person, talking about 'running the Windoze and Linux Boxen'.
Best first impression goes to who?
Although I suppose it would be a case of mixed feelings if you find your kid has managed to locate a camera to surreptitiously record the password, and ran a side-channel attack on the keyfob.
*Sniff*... Junior is growing up so fast. I was twice that age when I cracked my first system.
OK kid, it's dial-up only for a month.
Security key fob & password. Good luck kid.
Granted, part of my job is network security, so I might not be the typical parent.
What are we preventing, exactly?
That some big ISP might charge some big media company extra money?
Or that some big ISP might charge some small company extra money.
Or Bloggers.
Or Hobbyists.
Or their end users if they want access to sites not on the approved peer list.
But of course, you could always go to another ISP, right? Oh no... only the Cable and Telcos have high speed access, and they both seem to have the same prices and problems.
Well, you could always run your own ISP and put your own cables in... oh no, you can't, because they have the only contracts with the city to lay cables.
Wireless! yes, you can run a wISP! and...oh, no open frequencies?
Well, there's always dial up, because nothing is better than 56k, oh they're preventing that? 33, no? 28.8.. got it. 28.8, and you get to pay the phone company per minute for your call.
Yay! Freedom!
Why not wait until there's a real problem before bringing the force of a corrupt and inept bureaucracy to bear?
So, an ounce of prevention is a waste of time?
I'll make a deal: First, open up EVERY right of way, roadway, and utility access in every city and town in the US to any ISP that wants access. Second, open up every frequency for wireless access to everyone. Then you can kill net neutrality.
That would mean a chaotic mess of wires and non stop opening up of roadbeds to lay and fix cables. You won't be able to drive or walk down any city street. It would also stop cell phones and GPS's from working.
Communication infrastructure is a limited resource. Limited resources must be regulated properly or they will be abused. Phone and Cable companies are granted access to this limited resource to put their own cables and run their own cell towers to benefit my life first, not theirs. They have a grant from the people to do business, and they either follow our rules or they lose access.
They only removed Other OS because of (drumroll please) Geohotz found a viable crack in the hypervisor. You can blame its removal on him.
No, I think we can blame the removal on Sony.
Damn, you're good.
Do you have a cable news show?
I base my statement on observations through out my entire life, everything Ive read, everything Ive experienced.
And you still came up with the statements 'most honest and intelligent people are left leaning' and 'Republicans are now either Neo-cons, Tea-party or simply bat-shit crazy religious fanatics'?
Try to be constructive instead of an asshat.
Fine, you're an idiot, but you mean well, if you stop looking at the world with an us vs them attitude, you may become a better person one day.
he reason /. has a left leaning bias is because most honest and intelligent people are left leaning.
I'm moderate left leaning, and you're a prejudiced idiot.
I based that on the drivel that you unfortunately spewed on my screen and not on some sweeping 'all x are this' statements.
Incorrect, left leaning people are lazy and put form over substance. They don't understand the consequences of doing something because it feels good instead of being good.
Really? All of them? 100%? Amazing.
Hmm, if only there was a word for what you are doing, we could call it pre something, hmm, how about judging.
Google is and excellent example with their vision statement: Do no evil which means nothing since they are in the search/technology business.
Well, except that's not their vision statement, it's not even their informal motto. (It is close to it though)
But it sounds good, especially if you keep repeating it using your 640K is enough computer on your Al Gore created Internet.
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part in the Constitution where we were granted the right to enter private property against the owners wishes.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where the Constitution granted rights. Can you point out to me where that is?
(To save time, it's not in the first 10 amendments)
So, I can read a book, but not a Kindle?
Kindle goes in book jacket cover, problem solved.