Okay, now you're just being fucking stupid. When you've actually PASSED a high school social studies class, maybe then you'll be qualified to talk about Constitutional law, states of emergency, and the rules of war.
Here's a REALLY BIG FUCKING HINT: There's no fucking state of war, and certainly not WITHIN the US, which is where this guy is.
Re-reading your post, I've decided that you're the first Slashdot poster I've ever actually wanted to physically beat. I can't understand how you're managed to turn such a lack of knowledge into a virtue.
You're actually incorrect, and the parent is correct, although at various times we've ignored it. The constitution certainly does apply to prisoners of war, and it's illegal to deny them those rights.
I'm not sure why you think "one part of the Constitution does not rule out others", since a) they most certiainly do and b) it's hardly relevent, since there's nothing in there granting either state or federal governments the right to ignore any part of the Constitution, under any circumstances.
You know, your post betrays a thought process that I see more and more in America today, and it scares me.
It's the idea that anything that's done is justified, because there has to be a good reason for it.
The fact that this DOESN'T work is why we have that whole due process thing. And the FOIA. And all the other checks and balances that attempt to ensure the openness and accountability of government power.
It's essential to a free society. The removal of that openness and accountability is a sign of a totalitarian, facist government (Side note: Why is it that whenever someone talks about a policy as facist, there's a hundred people who will make scathing comments about slippery slope, but those same people have no problem with whitewashed comments about "liberals" and "Democrats"?)
I don't care if you're a serial murderer who's Bin Ladens fraternal twin and Saddam Husseins mistress. You're guaranteed a right to due process. And, even more importantly, _I_ am guaranteed the right to know who my government is prosecuting and why. I, and every other American citizen, have a right to see the the judical process in action and KNOW that it's fair. Taking it on faith is not an option - it's a betray of everything about the system.
Maybe this will make it very clear for all the fuckwits who seem to have some sort of mental block.
He WAS disappeared. He is no longer, because now his location is a matter of public record, etc, etc.
Even in Argentina, some of the dissapeared were eventually found, alive and (sort of) well. Are you going to tell them they weren't dissappeared either?
Or, more likely, is this some sort of emotional reaction to the idea that "disappearing" people is something that can't possibly happen in this country, so you come up with tons of explanations why it's not as bad?
He wasn't "publically" taken to prison. He was abducted from the parking lot at his place of employment. The people holding him would not admit to having taken him, nor to holding him, nor to his location for several weeks.
This is not functionally different from anything that happened in Argentina save that this has a happy ending, while dissapearences there did not.
Are Argentinian death squads worse? Yes. Does that matter relevent to this discussion? No.
Disappeared means you don't KNOW if he's dead or not. And while this (currently) doesn't really qualify, it's not for lack of trying (as the parent pointed out). Mike is fortunate in that he got a great deal of support from his friends and family.
It's important to remember that, despite that fact that it's well known NOW where he is and what's going on, for the first 2 weeks, the government didn't even admit to having taken him! That's disappeared by any definition.
"Material Witness" laws have little or nothing to do with witness in the traditional sense. And, as a heads up, you're under no obligation to cooperate with law enforcement, or give testimony, unless you're under subpoena. Which only happens in court. Which only happens when there's been the due process which is violated by the material witness laws.
Nobody until Ashcroft had the balls to use material witness legislation, much less advocate making thier use a standard policy. So while one can hardly blame the current administration for the laws, you can still be amazed at how little they care for the Consitution (which is technically a violation of the oath of office, btw, and therefore they're all perjurors...)
"The Fox News channel has officially added quote marks around the word "News" and reporters will now use the "finger-quotes" gesture when saying the word "news"
a) the college who granted it
b) The degree to which the philosophy of the people who designed the curriculum matches yours c) And, most importantly, the student who took it. Since, given the modern US education system (I'm not familiar enough with other countries to judge), a degree at any level less than a Masters or PhD does NOT mean you've actually learned the skills - it simply means you can pass the courses. Those aren't the same thing at all.
Being a good programmer requires alot more than a dozen classes. There's a mindset involved thats not common and hard to teach.
On top of that, software is something new. It's not well-defined and proven the way most other disciplines are - it's common, for example, for ground breaking new work in software to be done by amateurs. To cut yourself off from that because you insist on a piece of paper that doesn't neccesarily guarantee skill is stupid.
Choosing high level languages does NOT remove potential faults. It simply delegates those faults elsewhere. In some cases thats a reasonable tradeoff for the performance hit of a VM, in some cases it isn't.
The poster is talking about US law, I assume, and is being unclear. A flashing red light is treated as a stop sign, not just "stop". In the more civilized (West coast:P) parts of the US, most lights are dynamic - they use road sensors to adapt themselves to traffic, so late at night you've always have green (or wait just a couple seconds). I've noticed that on the east coast, things aren't as advanced. Many is the time I've cussed about that while waiting several minutes at a light on a 4 lane road late at night when there's no cross traffic.
This is true. Cutting edge, by definition, is untested, unproven technology. If the cutting edge product has time to become well-tested and proven, then your industry doesn't really innovate.
It's even sadder when you realized that we teach high school studends all about this sort of government technique (1984, how Hitler came to power), and people still can't recognize it when it's in front of them.
Bullshit. I don't speak more than a half dozen words of Spanish. If I ever move to Spain (or Mexico, or whatever), I won't expect to be hired for a job where I have to interact with people - ie, just about anything. Especially where I'm taking orders or doing support.
Now, an accent I don't mind, although one so heavy the person is hard to understand is annoying. But when I'm ordering from McDonalds, and the person taking the order can't understand anything other than numbers in English (literally. "Number one" is fine. "Hamburger and a Coke" gets her confused), that's just unacceptable.
Critizing someone for being unable to speak the official language of the country where they live and work is completely valid. If they expect to interact with people in America, then they need to learn English. I'd learn German or French or Spanish or whatever before moving to Germany or France or Spain or whatever.
I've never understood the problem with open book/note exams. Forcing people to memorize details only leads to cramming which is a crappy way to get long term retention. It's better in the long term if people are used to and skilled at using refrences anyway, since thats what people in the real world do when they can't remember something.
It's only terrorism when they other guy does it. Ask anyone who's pro-war, pro-bush, red blooded American, all that jazz, and they'll tell you that it's a logical and useful military tactic.
Thats economical bullshit. Companies are no such thing - they aren't any sort of entity. Someone makes a decision that it's cheaper to pay fines than it is to comply with law. Thats immoral. Someone makes a decision that it's better to user lawyers rather than competition to stay on top. That's immoral. Being hired by a company is not a magic "everything you do is okay" card, and neither is forming one. We have every right to expect that companies act both morally AND financially responsibly.
Oh, and the GPL makes it even MORE clear - it's not copying, it's distribution that's affected by the GPL. In fact, the gist of copyright law is also distribution, not just copying - I can make all the copies of a book I want, as long as I don't give them to anyone else.
Copyright law makes it specifically clear that copying neccesary for use is not infringment(as it should not be). I can't cite the exact code but I'm sure you'll find it if you look. It was added in 1977, so while EULAs before then may have had some legal power then (not likely) they don't now.
I suppose I should clarify that this is US law I'm talking about:P
Sigh. Time for some more slapping. One: The GPL is not an EULA. One more time: THE GPL IS NOT AN EULA.
It works under a different premise of law and performs a totally different purpose. It's been explained dozens of times and if you aren't clear on it now then you're either willfully ignorant or shouldn't be talking about things you haven't read.
MS does not support products under WINE. They never have. They likely never will. That's a given, and there's a huge difference between "not supporting a product" and "suing people who do unsupported things with your product". There seem to be alot of people here who can't understand that, either. If you aren't comfortable running important things under WINE, that's fine. Nobody will make you, especially not Microsoft. Although they've claimed that there aren't any undocumented APIs in Windows that're used for applications.
Here's another suprise - it IS perfectly okay to reverse engineer Windows. This is why MS hasn't sued Codeweavers or the WINE project. There's specific things you have to do to make sure you don't cross any legal lines, but as long as you do that you're fine. MS doesn't have to admit it - they don't have any say in the matter. WINE is a reverse engineering of the Win32 API from publically available documentation. Nothing wrong with that.
Next question: What makes you think that EULA's are "perfectly valid"? Just because they say they are?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a REALLY BIG FUCKING HINT: There's no fucking state of war, and certainly not WITHIN the US, which is where this guy is.
Re-reading your post, I've decided that you're the first Slashdot poster I've ever actually wanted to physically beat. I can't understand how you're managed to turn such a lack of knowledge into a virtue.
I'm not sure why you think "one part of the Constitution does not rule out others", since a) they most certiainly do and b) it's hardly relevent, since there's nothing in there granting either state or federal governments the right to ignore any part of the Constitution, under any circumstances.
It's the idea that anything that's done is justified, because there has to be a good reason for it.
The fact that this DOESN'T work is why we have that whole due process thing. And the FOIA. And all the other checks and balances that attempt to ensure the openness and accountability of government power.
It's essential to a free society. The removal of that openness and accountability is a sign of a totalitarian, facist government (Side note: Why is it that whenever someone talks about a policy as facist, there's a hundred people who will make scathing comments about slippery slope, but those same people have no problem with whitewashed comments about "liberals" and "Democrats"?)
I don't care if you're a serial murderer who's Bin Ladens fraternal twin and Saddam Husseins mistress. You're guaranteed a right to due process. And, even more importantly, _I_ am guaranteed the right to know who my government is prosecuting and why. I, and every other American citizen, have a right to see the the judical process in action and KNOW that it's fair. Taking it on faith is not an option - it's a betray of everything about the system.
He WAS disappeared. He is no longer, because now his location is a matter of public record, etc, etc.
Even in Argentina, some of the dissapeared were eventually found, alive and (sort of) well. Are you going to tell them they weren't dissappeared either?
Or, more likely, is this some sort of emotional reaction to the idea that "disappearing" people is something that can't possibly happen in this country, so you come up with tons of explanations why it's not as bad?
He wasn't "publically" taken to prison. He was abducted from the parking lot at his place of employment. The people holding him would not admit to having taken him, nor to holding him, nor to his location for several weeks.
This is not functionally different from anything that happened in Argentina save that this has a happy ending, while dissapearences there did not.
Are Argentinian death squads worse? Yes. Does that matter relevent to this discussion? No.
It's important to remember that, despite that fact that it's well known NOW where he is and what's going on, for the first 2 weeks, the government didn't even admit to having taken him! That's disappeared by any definition.
Nobody until Ashcroft had the balls to use material witness legislation, much less advocate making thier use a standard policy. So while one can hardly blame the current administration for the laws, you can still be amazed at how little they care for the Consitution (which is technically a violation of the oath of office, btw, and therefore they're all perjurors...)
Blatantly stolen from sinfest.net
In other news, the Pacific Ocean holds more water than any teacup I've ever seen.
I disagree that the case is totally reasonable (although the defendent may have looked like a squatter), and it's worth noting that the defendant won.
I just tell telemarketers that my land line is a cell phone. Hey, they lie, I lie.
a) the college who granted it
b) The degree to which the philosophy of the people who designed the curriculum matches yours
c) And, most importantly, the student who took it. Since, given the modern US education system (I'm not familiar enough with other countries to judge), a degree at any level less than a Masters or PhD does NOT mean you've actually learned the skills - it simply means you can pass the courses. Those aren't the same thing at all.
Being a good programmer requires alot more than a dozen classes. There's a mindset involved thats not common and hard to teach.
On top of that, software is something new. It's not well-defined and proven the way most other disciplines are - it's common, for example, for ground breaking new work in software to be done by amateurs. To cut yourself off from that because you insist on a piece of paper that doesn't neccesarily guarantee skill is stupid.
Choosing high level languages does NOT remove potential faults. It simply delegates those faults elsewhere. In some cases thats a reasonable tradeoff for the performance hit of a VM, in some cases it isn't.
The poster is talking about US law, I assume, and is being unclear. A flashing red light is treated as a stop sign, not just "stop". In the more civilized (West coast :P) parts of the US, most lights are dynamic - they use road sensors to adapt themselves to traffic, so late at night you've always have green (or wait just a couple seconds). I've noticed that on the east coast, things aren't as advanced. Many is the time I've cussed about that while waiting several minutes at a light on a 4 lane road late at night when there's no cross traffic.
This is true. Cutting edge, by definition, is untested, unproven technology. If the cutting edge product has time to become well-tested and proven, then your industry doesn't really innovate.
It's even sadder when you realized that we teach high school studends all about this sort of government technique (1984, how Hitler came to power), and people still can't recognize it when it's in front of them.
Now, an accent I don't mind, although one so heavy the person is hard to understand is annoying. But when I'm ordering from McDonalds, and the person taking the order can't understand anything other than numbers in English (literally. "Number one" is fine. "Hamburger and a Coke" gets her confused), that's just unacceptable.
Critizing someone for being unable to speak the official language of the country where they live and work is completely valid. If they expect to interact with people in America, then they need to learn English. I'd learn German or French or Spanish or whatever before moving to Germany or France or Spain or whatever.
I've never understood the problem with open book/note exams. Forcing people to memorize details only leads to cramming which is a crappy way to get long term retention. It's better in the long term if people are used to and skilled at using refrences anyway, since thats what people in the real world do when they can't remember something.
The actual parody was intended to be of American McGee's new game, Oz. (He's the guy who did that Alice in Wonderland gothic style shooter).
Of course, so is terrorism.
Thats economical bullshit. Companies are no such thing - they aren't any sort of entity. Someone makes a decision that it's cheaper to pay fines than it is to comply with law. Thats immoral. Someone makes a decision that it's better to user lawyers rather than competition to stay on top. That's immoral. Being hired by a company is not a magic "everything you do is okay" card, and neither is forming one. We have every right to expect that companies act both morally AND financially responsibly.
"niche" things like mail servers and communications makes up 90% of the server market.
An EULA does not (and cannot) rely on copyright law for it's power. It's some sort of bastardized version of contract law.
Oh, and the GPL makes it even MORE clear - it's not copying, it's distribution that's affected by the GPL. In fact, the gist of copyright law is also distribution, not just copying - I can make all the copies of a book I want, as long as I don't give them to anyone else.
I suppose I should clarify that this is US law I'm talking about :P
It works under a different premise of law and performs a totally different purpose. It's been explained dozens of times and if you aren't clear on it now then you're either willfully ignorant or shouldn't be talking about things you haven't read.
MS does not support products under WINE. They never have. They likely never will. That's a given, and there's a huge difference between "not supporting a product" and "suing people who do unsupported things with your product". There seem to be alot of people here who can't understand that, either. If you aren't comfortable running important things under WINE, that's fine. Nobody will make you, especially not Microsoft. Although they've claimed that there aren't any undocumented APIs in Windows that're used for applications.
Here's another suprise - it IS perfectly okay to reverse engineer Windows. This is why MS hasn't sued Codeweavers or the WINE project. There's specific things you have to do to make sure you don't cross any legal lines, but as long as you do that you're fine. MS doesn't have to admit it - they don't have any say in the matter. WINE is a reverse engineering of the Win32 API from publically available documentation. Nothing wrong with that.
Next question: What makes you think that EULA's are "perfectly valid"? Just because they say they are?