About a year ago, Eliot Spitzer in New York sued Network Associates for telling people they weren't allowed to write a review of their products without Network Associates approving it first. Now, a New York judge has told Network Associates that they have to remove that language from the packaging of their products and the website, and can't do anything that would bar people from writing reviews of their software products.
(As a side note, I believe this is the way the First Amendment is stretched to include private contracts: It says "Congress shall pass no law..." but copyright law is also a federal law, and therefore copyright law cannot be construed as prohibiting free speech other than speech with which it is directly concerned, i.e. copying of other people's work.)
Troll??? The parent post is informative and correct!
Obviously moderated by some moron who thinks that Java is a purely-interpreted language and therefore "can't possibly be faster than C++". I have news for them: Java virtual machines have been compiling down to native code for about five years. GCJ wasn't very original or very clever, and there's no logical reason why it should necessarily produce faster code than a JVM, just because it does its compiling in one go. In fact, there's reason to believe that it would be less powerful, because it doesn't dynamically optimise at runtime.
Anyone who's ever done any performance testing in Java knows that these days, concatinating produces FAR more efficient code than the StringBuffer method...
Rubbish. Concatenating uses stringbuffers. See this post for an example of when manually creating stringbuffers is more efficient.
To this end, spammers help. They proactively increase the level of pain in the Internet community. This brings forward the day when some kind of solution is put in place. So they are making the world a better place (or at least they will, some time soon). So I would say they are acting ethically.
You seem to be saying something like "Rapists are good, because the more they rape the more they bring forward the day when they will be caught".
The EPA is just as much a gestapo as any other government organization.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed any shred of credibility you might have had with that wild-eyed, extremist, redneck militia libertarian hyperbole.
Hint: some of us don't believe that all government departments are "gestapos" (Social Security for instance). Offhandedly saying that the government is a Mafia, without any evidence, is likely to turn off potential readers.
I don't know why I bother. You're probably too stupid to take this advice, I don't know why I bother giving it.
For instance I think the replacement of most or all coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants is one of the great missed opportunities caused by "know nothing" environmentalists who tended to demand perfection rather than improvement.
The main reason why I don't trust the (UK) nuclear industry is that they are still breaching their own safety rules, and covering it up. I've read report upon report of safety protocols being ignored, safety inspectors being infuriated by repeated infractions, and (only partially successful) attempts at coverups - which leaves the impression that the nuclear industry (in both its civilian and military aspects - they are really only two sides of the same coin) is irredeemably corrupt.
It's the morons in the extremist movements, advocating that we tear down all the dams to save the damned salmon, who have their collective heads up their asses.
I don't know about anti-hydro protestors, but in the UK, a lot of the opposition to wind farms is actually orchestrated by a lobby group with ties to the nuclear industry. Conspiracy theory? No, conspiracy practice.
So much for expensive, proprietary DBMSs being better than their open source competitors...
I think it's unlikely that DB2's never been used on a site with the popularity of sf.net, so perhaps it's just bloated and slow compared to what they were using before?
I didn't come across any that could coherently argue as to why the negative effects would outweigh the positive.
Yes, it's difficult to make that case convincingly, I think. But here's a first attempt (typed in a hurry, relies on people Googling for more information - in any event it simply isn't possible to give people a good education in US/UK foreign policy in 60 seconds. For that, you need to read Chomsky or Pilger or someone like that).
Sorry. I think nearly everywhere outside the U.S. of A. most people would be likening Microsoft to the U.S. imperial army and not the Iraqi freedom fighters.
Well yes, so would I - but I wouldn't call the Republican Guard "freedom fighters"...
Look, you idiot. This is from a pro-war newspaper stable (incidentally, in fact all English national newspaper editors are pro-war now, apart from the Daily Mirror's editor). Let us apply some basic common sense here: the reporter would have mentioned if the troops had offered an alternative explanation than "We killed them". They didn't even bother, so that's what happened.
And the chances of Rupert Murdoch's ragsheets letting a reporter make up a headline like that, if it was unsubstantiated, are nil.
# The statute called for a statewide list of potential felons to be compiled. This list was passed to the election supervisors in every county.
# The county elections supervisors were not even required to use the list at all, but if they did decide to use it, they (the county supervisors, not Catherine Harris) were required to verify the names as actual felons before they were removed from the voter registration.
That's a convenient way for Katherine Harris to evade responsibility. It would have been quite possible for the database contractor to perform some basic checks before handing them to the county supervisors - it makes far more sense from an efficiency point of view. But Palast obtained documents showing that Harris' office had written "Not neccessary" over a list of checks to be performed. This was a deliberate attempt to disenfrashise people of color.
There is, actually. It's called the Human Rights Act. It has freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.
There is also judicial review, under which a judge can can declare that a law or regulation is "irrational" or "does not achieve its intended purpose" (IIRC), but that's not got much teeth.
Re:I was going to be a karma whore and
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Due to United Nations Sanctions, Iraq does not have any direct internet access.
The only Iraqis you will find posting on Slashdot are those who are currently outside the country.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
The Office of the President of the United States of America merits respect.
Um. I have one question for you. Why?
Try telling that to an anarchist, and see what kind of reaction you get.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, this type of thing has already been ruled unconstitutional in New York at least, thanks to the New York Attorney General:
(As a side note, I believe this is the way the First Amendment is stretched to include private contracts: It says "Congress shall pass no law..." but copyright law is also a federal law, and therefore copyright law cannot be construed as prohibiting free speech other than speech with which it is directly concerned, i.e. copying of other people's work.)Obviously moderated by some moron who thinks that Java is a purely-interpreted language and therefore "can't possibly be faster than C++". I have news for them: Java virtual machines have been compiling down to native code for about five years. GCJ wasn't very original or very clever, and there's no logical reason why it should necessarily produce faster code than a JVM, just because it does its compiling in one go. In fact, there's reason to believe that it would be less powerful, because it doesn't dynamically optimise at runtime.
Rubbish. Concatenating uses stringbuffers. See this post for an example of when manually creating stringbuffers is more efficient.
You seem to be saying something like "Rapists are good, because the more they rape the more they bring forward the day when they will be caught".
Congratulations, you've just destroyed any shred of credibility you might have had with that wild-eyed, extremist, redneck militia libertarian hyperbole.
Hint: some of us don't believe that all government departments are "gestapos" (Social Security for instance). Offhandedly saying that the government is a Mafia, without any evidence, is likely to turn off potential readers.
I don't know why I bother. You're probably too stupid to take this advice, I don't know why I bother giving it.
The main reason why I don't trust the (UK) nuclear industry is that they are still breaching their own safety rules, and covering it up. I've read report upon report of safety protocols being ignored, safety inspectors being infuriated by repeated infractions, and (only partially successful) attempts at coverups - which leaves the impression that the nuclear industry (in both its civilian and military aspects - they are really only two sides of the same coin) is irredeemably corrupt.
I don't know about anti-hydro protestors, but in the UK, a lot of the opposition to wind farms is actually orchestrated by a lobby group with ties to the nuclear industry. Conspiracy theory? No, conspiracy practice.
I don't. Perhaps it's a country-specific thing? I'm in the UK, where handguns are banned (IIRC).
Like what?
So much for expensive, proprietary DBMSs being better than their open source competitors...
I think it's unlikely that DB2's never been used on a site with the popularity of sf.net, so perhaps it's just bloated and slow compared to what they were using before?
Yes, it's difficult to make that case convincingly, I think. But here's a first attempt (typed in a hurry, relies on people Googling for more information - in any event it simply isn't possible to give people a good education in US/UK foreign policy in 60 seconds. For that, you need to read Chomsky or Pilger or someone like that).
I don't think that this particular "Googlewashing" is intentional by Google, I think it's just a result of their algorithm which looks at link popularity, as mentioned in the article; Google are privately-held (no public shareholders) and the management seem to be liberal/libertarian, e.g. they refuse to take advertising from gun and tobacco companies. On the other hand they have allegedly collaborated with at least 1 government to censor themselves, but in the case of China that was probably a case of "either you censor yourselves or we block you completely", so they probably didn't have much of a choice in that case.
So anyway, I think they would be quite into these link-type discriminators and would like to use them if they became widely used. Another reason why XML is the future...
[1] In other words, non-XHTML XML styled with CSS or XSL, if you want to get *really* technical. Using a multiple-output-type delivery system like Apache Cocoon, you can still support older browsers and serve this up to browsers which support it. (Make sure your outgoing proxy, if any, supports the HTTP Vary header though!)
Well yes, so would I - but I wouldn't call the Republican Guard "freedom fighters"...
And the chances of Rupert Murdoch's ragsheets letting a reporter make up a headline like that, if it was unsubstantiated, are nil.
Fascinating how the two of us can come to such diametrically opposite readings of the reporter's intentions, no?
If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that the soldiers themselves told what happened.
# The county elections supervisors were not even required to use the list at all, but if they did decide to use it, they (the county supervisors, not Catherine Harris) were required to verify the names as actual felons before they were removed from the voter registration.
That's a convenient way for Katherine Harris to evade responsibility. It would have been quite possible for the database contractor to perform some basic checks before handing them to the county supervisors - it makes far more sense from an efficiency point of view. But Palast obtained documents showing that Harris' office had written "Not neccessary" over a list of checks to be performed. This was a deliberate attempt to disenfrashise people of color.
In the same sense that the Conservative Party is a pack of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers.
If you can't tell the difference between Socialist Worker and the BBC, I pity you.
There is also judicial review, under which a judge can can declare that a law or regulation is "irrational" or "does not achieve its intended purpose" (IIRC), but that's not got much teeth.
The only Iraqis you will find posting on Slashdot are those who are currently outside the country.
Um. I have one question for you. Why?
Try telling that to an anarchist, and see what kind of reaction you get.