I write some webapps in PHP. At one moment, i completely remove GET method, for another reason (not important here). But i see that, by the way, you can't force someone to POST a form with a link.
Am I wrong ? I always tought POST was handy and secure.
If you are interested I may provide some code. It's ugly and perfectionable, but, hey, it works.
>>Can you do that with regard to speech? So far every attept has been a failure.
I don't agree. Speech (like thought) has no consequences in itself. None at all. I can tell whatever I want, it won't hurt (physically) you in any way. Reaction to speech (like people believing lies and acting in fonction) could have consequences, but that's another thing. For sure, as I know there are people out there stupid enough to believe lies, i won't tell lies on you, but in a certain way, I find myself not doing something, not because it is harmful in itself, but because some stupid people can make an harmful usage of it. I don't like this idea, but I got to think about it.
As for : "no one else can know what they are thinking, no one can react to their thought" - Yes, yes, I knew that it has been the case in Soviet Russia, and maybe also in Mac Arthy's USA... some people have tried to think different. Too bad for them. You know, thinking is a lot like speaking, depending on how loud you think or speak...
>>I fail to see what intellectual property has to do with this discussion
Nothing, I only see a parrallel. Maybe I choose the wrong word, I mean there is a lot of common things in both "speech = act, thus it should be controlled" and "IP = physical property, so it should be controlled" - I say this as it has come to my mind. Analogy may be a better word.
>>So you admit that you do not have "freedom from consequences" regarding something you said?
In fact, if you look at the case in question, speech (i.e. [2]ranting about a girlfriend) is a consequence of '[1]the guy has nothing to do with her' (because obviously, by doing so, he proves he doesn't love her...), so i only see the fact 'she (or he) dumps the other' as another consequence of [1], only correlated with [2] but not essentially caused by [1]. Seems different to me...
>>the university retains the right to throw someone out of school if they deem appropriate
It could be a lot different in the US, but as to my country, i have seen that a student needs a university a lot more than the university needs a student. (Applying the law of supply and demand to education could be OK for you, I don't think so.) So the university can ask whatever it want to its students: to shut up and obey. Good way the educate the masses, i think.
When you consider speech is an act, you can also consider think is an act. And when doing so, applying all the rules that apply on the acts (i.e. some are forbidden) to thought. Thought crime, isn't it ?
When you say "speech is act", what i hear is a nice parrallel with "intellectual property" is like "physical property", and so, copy = theft. I find it pretty logical in a cerain sense.
And as a last remark, if you rant publicly on your girlfriend, I can't see, anyway, what you are doing with her; but in private relation, no problem, you (or her) can end it as you want. In a contractual relation, finding you are abused (the other is not doing his part) should mean you can criticize (even publicly) the other part, without the contract being interrupted. Or else, it could be so easy to abuse any students... oh, what ? It's already the case ? Mh, I suppose it can go on and on and noone should be allowed to talk...
>>A person's girlfriend certainly does have some power in the relationship. For instance she has the power to deny her boyfriend sex with her. Just as a university has the power to deny a student their scholarship or access to their program.
Excuse me, but I find it strange : if she "deny" him sex, she can't have sex too ? You say she can punish him, but she is also punished, so I can't see the point of the "punishement". Maybe a question of culture...
>> If I announce that tomorrow I am going to set off a bomb
I wrote : "Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts." Excuse me, but what part of "speech. Not acts" did I spell wrong ? English is not my native language.
>>everyone can safely avoid that building and be safe from my bomb.
But the building can't escape. So not everyone and everything is safe. I never say you can do all you want. I say you can "say" what you want. Speech, not acts.
>>I mean if you were to call your girlfriend names like those in your blog, are you going to run crying to the EFF when she finds out and dumps you?
A slight difference : your girlfriend can dump you. That's OK. But there is no hierachial link between you, or if you prefer, she has no power so to say upon you. (Nothing personnal, of course, i don't know your girlfriend:))
Freedom of speech _should_mean_ freedom from consequences. Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts. When someone fires on you, you can't decide to dodge the bullet. When someone wrongly criticize you, you can safely ignore it. And you can safely ignore everyone who is stupid enough to listen it and believe it without any evidence.
Problem is the society we live in where the stupidiest guys (who listen and believe every lies they are told) are also the most powerful. Solve this problem first, and free speech, when wrongly used, will only ridiculize the author.
I think this is the kind of things like, you know, "humour".
As you know, comments on PHP vs. Other Scripting Languages are totally useless...... because PHP is the best. (the same joke with Debian and Other Distribs is left as an exercice to the reader...)
But MS can change the whole interface, it won't change the minds of the lusers. They are too proud of having "the latest version" of this "professional office shit^W suite" (for suits:)
And even if they don't want to switch, some PHB will force them to. You can always rely on PHB to enforce stupid decision and approve bad design. Time to start some really bad designed (and overpriced) linux distribution to conquer the desktop !
Exactly. That's why laws can't define every case. And that's why law is totally useless, because every case not treated (as in the present situation) will have to be thought about.
Law is just there to make the outcome of some of your actions predictable: For doing this, or that, you will be fined/punished/etc or not.
Not irony here. Just trying to compare the way it goes in software engineering, where all the cases have not been carefully studied.
a kid turning off the phone ? never see that. We i saw certain "kids" (or immature so-called adults) i bet the phone is ON even in the bed in the middle of the night:)
Apart from this, in France, that would be a good idea, as you can be fined if you phone and drive in the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you explain how you manage to post BEFORE my answer ?
I write some webapps in PHP. At one moment, i completely remove GET method, for another reason (not important here). But i see that, by the way, you can't force someone to POST a form with a link.
Am I wrong ? I always tought POST was handy and secure.
If you are interested I may provide some code. It's ugly and perfectionable, but, hey, it works.
>>Can you do that with regard to speech? So far every attept has been a failure.
I don't agree. Speech (like thought) has no consequences in itself. None at all. I can tell whatever I want, it won't hurt (physically) you in any way. Reaction to speech (like people believing lies and acting in fonction) could have consequences, but that's another thing. For sure, as I know there are people out there stupid enough to believe lies, i won't tell lies on you, but in a certain way, I find myself not doing something, not because it is harmful in itself, but because some stupid people can make an harmful usage of it. I don't like this idea, but I got to think about it.
As for : "no one else can know what they are thinking, no one can react to their thought" - Yes, yes, I knew that it has been the case in Soviet Russia, and maybe also in Mac Arthy's USA... some people have tried to think different. Too bad for them. You know, thinking is a lot like speaking, depending on how loud you think or speak...
>>I fail to see what intellectual property has to do with this discussion
Nothing, I only see a parrallel. Maybe I choose the wrong word, I mean there is a lot of common things in both "speech = act, thus it should be controlled" and "IP = physical property, so it should be controlled" - I say this as it has come to my mind. Analogy may be a better word.
>>So you admit that you do not have "freedom from consequences" regarding something you said?
In fact, if you look at the case in question, speech (i.e. [2]ranting about a girlfriend) is a consequence of '[1]the guy has nothing to do with her' (because obviously, by doing so, he proves he doesn't love her...), so i only see the fact 'she (or he) dumps the other' as another consequence of [1], only correlated with [2] but not essentially caused by [1]. Seems different to me...
>>the university retains the right to throw someone out of school if they deem appropriate
It could be a lot different in the US, but as to my country, i have seen that a student needs a university a lot more than the university needs a student. (Applying the law of supply and demand to education could be OK for you, I don't think so.) So the university can ask whatever it want to its students: to shut up and obey. Good way the educate the masses, i think.
When you consider speech is an act, you can also consider think is an act. And when doing so, applying all the rules that apply on the acts (i.e. some are forbidden) to thought. Thought crime, isn't it ?
When you say "speech is act", what i hear is a nice parrallel with "intellectual property" is like "physical property", and so, copy = theft. I find it pretty logical in a cerain sense.
And as a last remark, if you rant publicly on your girlfriend, I can't see, anyway, what you are doing with her; but in private relation, no problem, you (or her) can end it as you want. In a contractual relation, finding you are abused (the other is not doing his part) should mean you can criticize (even publicly) the other part, without the contract being interrupted. Or else, it could be so easy to abuse any students... oh, what ? It's already the case ? Mh, I suppose it can go on and on and noone should be allowed to talk...
>>A person's girlfriend certainly does have some power in the relationship. For instance she has the power to deny her boyfriend sex with her. Just as a university has the power to deny a student their scholarship or access to their program.
Excuse me, but I find it strange : if she "deny" him sex, she can't have sex too ? You say she can punish him, but she is also punished, so I can't see the point of the "punishement". Maybe a question of culture...
>> If I announce that tomorrow I am going to set off a bomb
I wrote : "Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts." Excuse me, but what part of "speech. Not acts" did I spell wrong ? English is not my native language.
>>everyone can safely avoid that building and be safe from my bomb.
But the building can't escape. So not everyone and everything is safe. I never say you can do all you want. I say you can "say" what you want. Speech, not acts.
>>I mean if you were to call your girlfriend names like those in your blog, are you going to run crying to the EFF when she finds out and dumps you?
:))
A slight difference : your girlfriend can dump you. That's OK. But there is no hierachial link between you, or if you prefer, she has no power so to say upon you. (Nothing personnal, of course, i don't know your girlfriend
Freedom of speech _should_mean_ freedom from consequences. Why ? Because it is speech. Not acts. When someone fires on you, you can't decide to dodge the bullet. When someone wrongly criticize you, you can safely ignore it. And you can safely ignore everyone who is stupid enough to listen it and believe it without any evidence.
Problem is the society we live in where the stupidiest guys (who listen and believe every lies they are told) are also the most powerful. Solve this problem first, and free speech, when wrongly used, will only ridiculize the author.
Plus, if you choose windows as your OS, you're fully responsible in the first place...
I think this is the kind of things like, you know, "humour".
... because PHP is the best. (the same joke with Debian and Other Distribs is left as an exercice to the reader...)
As you know, comments on PHP vs. Other Scripting Languages are totally useless...
May the users stay out of the new paradigm...
:)
But MS can change the whole interface, it won't change the minds of the lusers. They are too proud of having "the latest version" of this "professional office shit^W suite" (for suits
And even if they don't want to switch, some PHB will force them to. You can always rely on PHB to enforce stupid decision and approve bad design. Time to start some really bad designed (and overpriced) linux distribution to conquer the desktop !
>>you're bashing capitalism and we all know the alternatives don't work so get with the program.
we all know ?
If by "don't work", you mean "can't resist to a massive US Army attack", so you probably right...
>>If he can make one $50 sale per 100 emails, then he's still in the green.
not really "in the green" - you mean, he can pay the fine. But sending 2G spams is not as free as you may think. Somehow you got to pay for this.
Anyway, ads and spam are alike. It's extremely difficult to determine if the are efficient. Guess who is happy from that ?
Keystroke logging ? SquirrelMail has a perfect
9
:)
plugin for that kind of things...
http://www.squirrelmail.org/plugin_view.php?id=15
Of course you got to have your own webmail, but without it, security is pointless
disguising a business as a church ?
i can't see many differences between businesses and churches. Are there any ?
>See the problem? It's not black and white.
Exactly. That's why laws can't define every case. And that's why law is totally useless, because every case not treated (as in the present situation) will have to be thought about.
Law is just there to make the outcome of some of your actions predictable: For doing this, or that, you will be fined/punished/etc or not.
Not irony here. Just trying to compare the way it goes in software engineering, where all the cases have not been carefully studied.
... hem ... with guns ?
a kid turning off the phone ? never see that. We i saw certain "kids" (or immature so-called adults) i bet the phone is ON even in the bed in the middle of the night :)
Apart from this, in France, that would be a good idea, as you can be fined if you phone and drive in the same time.
stupid innovation, stupidest applications.
>> Les Francais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.
:)
ahem. if i may help you, i would be better to say : "Les français sont des poules mouillées qui mangent du fromage."
but actually, your sig was funny said that way
...the FAMOUS slashdot effect !!!