I can opt out of the private sector. If I don't want a loyalty card, I don't have to get one. If I don't want a credit card, I can do without. If I don't want my bank knowing where I'm spending I can make a point of always using ATMs. But last I checked, there's no way of opting out from beneath my country's government.
That's why I don't want them stealing my privacy. It's my choice how much of it I sacrifice and where, not theirs; even if I want to post every detail of my life to a LiveJournal, that's my choice - it still doesn't give anyone the right to take it from me by force.
You wouldn't say that it's OK to rape someone who sleeps around, so why on earth would you advocate the same line of reasoning where privacy is concerned?
Aren't ads generally fetched from third party sites? In which case your claim to be saving the GP's bandwidth is quite specious; you've already downloaded the URL for the ad with the rest of the page. No bandwidth saved - no money saved.
Of course it's your choice whether or not to view ads at all, and you have every right to it. But it's not charity, and it won't make a damn bit of difference to anyone else's bandwidth bills.
I understand your ire at banks, but the Nationwide Building Society isn't one - it's a mutual society, one of the last, and it's committed to remaining one, despite the efforts of the carpetbaggers who all but destroyed the principle of mutuality in the 1990s. Whilst it doesn't brag about an ethical policy as such, its commitment to mutuality is already an ethically desirable quality, and it's consistently voted one of the best big companies to work for in the UK.
(In contrast, Smile is a division of the Co-operative Bank, which IS a bank, despite having grown from a co-operative organisation; moreover - and ironically, given its origins - the Co-operative Bank has repeatedly recorded the highest levels of staff dissatisfaction of the high street banks. A case of "do as I say, not as I do"?)
I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately the right to bear arms has been long since lost to Britons, on precisely the same grounds (that they can be used for nefarious purposes).
The HRA is already so piss-weak that it doesn't need amending or repealing. Compliance is required from everyone EXCEPT the executive.
Nonetheless, the combination of the HRA and the Supreme Court Act seems to have emboldened the judiciary (by separating it from the Lords, they've essentially guaranteed its independence) to the point where judges might now be prepared to overturn three centuries of "playing nice" and start challenging the government head-on. After all, it's now evident that Parliament has failed as a check on executive power; who's left? It might take the next generation of lawlords to do it, but I think there will be a face-off between the executive and the judiciary within the next ten years.
With all due respect, and acknowledging that Windows fits with your needs and preferences better - saying that Windows is a better OS based on its having a "better" UI is like saying that DeLoreans were better cars than Ferraris because of the shiny gullwing doors.
The same argument can be made for not allowing large corporations to fund scientific research. The trouble is that once one has ruled out the State and the megacorps - where do the poor scientists go to get their funding? Which institutions are free enough from bias and the possibility of suppressing undesirable results to be "good funders"? More importantly, where do they get their money from...?
But there is some debate as to whether or not the lawlords would support a bill with such significant constitutional ramifications being forced into law without proper consensus - this issue was raised in a legal challenge to the ban on fox hunting, and fell only because that ban was not seen as significant. Moreover, the recent reforms of the judiciary may well have the effect of making them more willing to take an active position against this kind of parliamentary over-reaching. We might just be safer than we fear...
On the other hand, I sincerely hope that theory is never tested. Just in case.
Speaking of the Constitution, the whole reason the company in question was trying to undelete files from his laptop in the first place was because they wanted to find some evidence of his breaking a contract.
Surely, in the spirit of the 5th Amendment, he should have every right to securely delete files he thought might incriminate him? And doesn't the invocation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act turn this into a criminal case, where the 5th Amendment applies directly?
"mouth breathers": are you being specifically insulting to those with asthma, or was it just part of a generalised stream of abuse aimed at anyone who isn't you?
Either way, learn some manners; it doesn't matter how clever you are if you've managed to persuade them that you can't keep a civil tongue.
No, they'll use a far more powerful threat. They'll threaten to make the code and features so secure and plentiful that everyone will be delighted with Vista, and nobody will ever need to upgrade again...
Actually, I have to out-pedant you; if you scream it into a microphone connected to a radio station, you're publishing it and it thus becomes libel. It's the public dissemination part that's significant.
And I think his point was that in an ideal world without time limitations that would be the case, but when you only have 4 minutes for a piece you have to pick your targets. Maybe they picked wrong, but it's unfair to criticise them for not fitting a gallon into a pintglass.
You could, I suppose, but only if you were clinically insane. The BBC is as near to neutral as it's possible for a state-run organisation to be; it certainly annoys the government in the UK on a regular basis. If it seems anti-Western to you, then perhaps you have a very wrong-headed idea of what it means to be pro-Western.
OK - so you have a great job in every aspect except for the work not really challenging you; and the chance to go and do something much more interesting for a startup for less money. I can understand you not wanting to do either irrevocably! However, if your current employer is that good, could you explain the situation to them, point out that you don't feel challenged, and see whether they would mind you taking 6 or 12 months out from them, without pay, to go and scratch your itch? If it doesn't work out, you're covered (and believe me, good people are probably more important than challenging work in a job); either way, you won't be looking back in ten years saying "if only I'd done that..."
That IS an abusive situation - and you're making apologies for them for doing it. "They've been forgiving" of a situation they created? Very noble of them, I'm sure - meanwhile, they're reaping the benefits of having you do a job you aren't qualified to do, probably doing it much better than they could have hoped for - so well they haven't had to hire someone else to do it, remember that! - and into the bargain they've got you dismantling your own self-esteem so that you don't think you're "good enough" when the reality is that you're excelling, despite your situation.
Sit back, work to rule, and let them fire you - if they can find a reason to do so. But don't let them do you any more psychological damage; you are MUCH better than you are giving yourself credit for, and instead of punishing yourself for not being up to the mark, realise just how well you are doing and how little you are receiving for it - and think about what you would tell your best friend if their partner treated them this way.
I absolutely agree with you that jail is a very effective university of criminal techniques, but perhaps we should be grateful that by its very nature it's not going to be a terribly good place to learn how to evade detection?
Slashdot Mirror
"one of the sickest, most twisted sexual fetishes: abstinence"
You know, it's somehow heartwarming to know that even the celibate can be branded perverts for their choice.
I can opt out of the private sector. If I don't want a loyalty card, I don't have to get one. If I don't want a credit card, I can do without. If I don't want my bank knowing where I'm spending I can make a point of always using ATMs. But last I checked, there's no way of opting out from beneath my country's government.
That's why I don't want them stealing my privacy. It's my choice how much of it I sacrifice and where, not theirs; even if I want to post every detail of my life to a LiveJournal, that's my choice - it still doesn't give anyone the right to take it from me by force.
You wouldn't say that it's OK to rape someone who sleeps around, so why on earth would you advocate the same line of reasoning where privacy is concerned?
Scotland isn't independent yet...
"Why should I waste my bandwidth, AND YOURS..."
Aren't ads generally fetched from third party sites? In which case your claim to be saving the GP's bandwidth is quite specious; you've already downloaded the URL for the ad with the rest of the page. No bandwidth saved - no money saved.
Of course it's your choice whether or not to view ads at all, and you have every right to it. But it's not charity, and it won't make a damn bit of difference to anyone else's bandwidth bills.
I understand your ire at banks, but the Nationwide Building Society isn't one - it's a mutual society, one of the last, and it's committed to remaining one, despite the efforts of the carpetbaggers who all but destroyed the principle of mutuality in the 1990s. Whilst it doesn't brag about an ethical policy as such, its commitment to mutuality is already an ethically desirable quality, and it's consistently voted one of the best big companies to work for in the UK.
(In contrast, Smile is a division of the Co-operative Bank, which IS a bank, despite having grown from a co-operative organisation; moreover - and ironically, given its origins - the Co-operative Bank has repeatedly recorded the highest levels of staff dissatisfaction of the high street banks. A case of "do as I say, not as I do"?)
I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately the right to bear arms has been long since lost to Britons, on precisely the same grounds (that they can be used for nefarious purposes).
The HRA is already so piss-weak that it doesn't need amending or repealing. Compliance is required from everyone EXCEPT the executive. Nonetheless, the combination of the HRA and the Supreme Court Act seems to have emboldened the judiciary (by separating it from the Lords, they've essentially guaranteed its independence) to the point where judges might now be prepared to overturn three centuries of "playing nice" and start challenging the government head-on. After all, it's now evident that Parliament has failed as a check on executive power; who's left? It might take the next generation of lawlords to do it, but I think there will be a face-off between the executive and the judiciary within the next ten years.
The article explicitly states otherwise.
With all due respect, and acknowledging that Windows fits with your needs and preferences better - saying that Windows is a better OS based on its having a "better" UI is like saying that DeLoreans were better cars than Ferraris because of the shiny gullwing doors.
Here you go. Mind the badgers.
The same argument can be made for not allowing large corporations to fund scientific research. The trouble is that once one has ruled out the State and the megacorps - where do the poor scientists go to get their funding? Which institutions are free enough from bias and the possibility of suppressing undesirable results to be "good funders"? More importantly, where do they get their money from...?
But there is some debate as to whether or not the lawlords would support a bill with such significant constitutional ramifications being forced into law without proper consensus - this issue was raised in a legal challenge to the ban on fox hunting, and fell only because that ban was not seen as significant. Moreover, the recent reforms of the judiciary may well have the effect of making them more willing to take an active position against this kind of parliamentary over-reaching. We might just be safer than we fear...
On the other hand, I sincerely hope that theory is never tested. Just in case.
Speaking of the Constitution, the whole reason the company in question was trying to undelete files from his laptop in the first place was because they wanted to find some evidence of his breaking a contract.
Surely, in the spirit of the 5th Amendment, he should have every right to securely delete files he thought might incriminate him? And doesn't the invocation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act turn this into a criminal case, where the 5th Amendment applies directly?
"mouth breathers": are you being specifically insulting to those with asthma, or was it just part of a generalised stream of abuse aimed at anyone who isn't you?
Either way, learn some manners; it doesn't matter how clever you are if you've managed to persuade them that you can't keep a civil tongue.
No, they'll use a far more powerful threat. They'll threaten to make the code and features so secure and plentiful that everyone will be delighted with Vista, and nobody will ever need to upgrade again...
Actually, I have to out-pedant you; if you scream it into a microphone connected to a radio station, you're publishing it and it thus becomes libel. It's the public dissemination part that's significant.
And I think his point was that in an ideal world without time limitations that would be the case, but when you only have 4 minutes for a piece you have to pick your targets. Maybe they picked wrong, but it's unfair to criticise them for not fitting a gallon into a pintglass.
You could, I suppose, but only if you were clinically insane. The BBC is as near to neutral as it's possible for a state-run organisation to be; it certainly annoys the government in the UK on a regular basis. If it seems anti-Western to you, then perhaps you have a very wrong-headed idea of what it means to be pro-Western.
...my first thought, on reading the headline: "Cool - beat the PSP at its own game, but with something easily animated and a bit of culture too!"
And then the other shoe dropped...
Oh, you can if you think it's worth a prison sentence. ;)
(hmm, maybe that's why the US still has the death penalty?)
OK - so you have a great job in every aspect except for the work not really challenging you; and the chance to go and do something much more interesting for a startup for less money. I can understand you not wanting to do either irrevocably! However, if your current employer is that good, could you explain the situation to them, point out that you don't feel challenged, and see whether they would mind you taking 6 or 12 months out from them, without pay, to go and scratch your itch? If it doesn't work out, you're covered (and believe me, good people are probably more important than challenging work in a job); either way, you won't be looking back in ten years saying "if only I'd done that..."
That IS an abusive situation - and you're making apologies for them for doing it. "They've been forgiving" of a situation they created? Very noble of them, I'm sure - meanwhile, they're reaping the benefits of having you do a job you aren't qualified to do, probably doing it much better than they could have hoped for - so well they haven't had to hire someone else to do it, remember that! - and into the bargain they've got you dismantling your own self-esteem so that you don't think you're "good enough" when the reality is that you're excelling, despite your situation.
Sit back, work to rule, and let them fire you - if they can find a reason to do so. But don't let them do you any more psychological damage; you are MUCH better than you are giving yourself credit for, and instead of punishing yourself for not being up to the mark, realise just how well you are doing and how little you are receiving for it - and think about what you would tell your best friend if their partner treated them this way.
I absolutely agree with you that jail is a very effective university of criminal techniques, but perhaps we should be grateful that by its very nature it's not going to be a terribly good place to learn how to evade detection?