I'm going to backpedal a bit and say that it is important whether or not he was the Son of God. But, with that said, it is not relevant to how I choose to behave, and also that there is generally little point in discussing it as nobody will change their mind solely from discussion of his divine origin.
I view the teachings as being of a different quality of importance than the source, but not necessarily more or less important. I also believe that belief in his teachings is the key to salvation, and not belief in his divinity. (I know that puts me in conflict with many sects.) Therefore, I believe that convincing others to re-examine his teachings is more important than convincing others to believe in his divinity. I also find that belief in his teachings reaffirms my belief in his divinity, and I hope that others feel the same way, but I will be more than satisfied if people just forgive each other and treat each other with love and respect.
Extremists are crazy, film at eleven. I also share your wish that there weren't quite so many of them. I never considered it my responsibility to push religious extremists towards the middle. I never really thought about it. Much as a typical conservative or liberal never really thinks about pushing their extremists towards the middle. But maybe it's not as hopeless a battle as it seems. It's something worth thinking about.
My point is that discussing his philosophy and teachings is more productive than discussing his divinity, and that making his divinity the point of focus is doing a disservice to his teachings. I think that he would prefer that more people do as he preached, even if they don't believe in his divinity.
Also, I do believe in his divinity, but I don't think it's worth arguing about, because arguing won't change anyone's mind. It's far better to espouse his teachings, which can have a positive effect on people regardless of their beliefs. Further, understanding his teachings is the first step in becoming a Christian. Belief is not the first step. You simply "can't get there from here."
And I don't care if other people think I'm a Christian or not.
Thank you for saying this. I am a Christian. I understand the Atheist viewpoint and find it very tantalizing. However, what makes me remain a Christian is not the bible or creation stories or anything of that sort. It's the moral code that Jesus taught. It's an ideal to strive towards. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." If more people lived life to that moral code, the world would be a better place. Jesus saw that reciprocal violence just escalates into century long feuds, and that the only way to stop it is for someone to just let it go and forgive. He saw that, in general, cooperation leads to greater benefit than competition.
Whether or not he was the Son of God, is irrelevant. From a purely utilitarian perspective, his philosophy is what is important, and his philosophy is very sensible. There are, of course, aspects of the bible that are dated and were relevant at the time, but are no longer so. At the time, cloven hoofed animals were more dangerous to eat. At the time, circumcision did help prevent disease.
Anyway, that's my belief. I try not to force it on anyone, but Atheists who attempt to force their beliefs on the world irritate me.
Not to mention that when you do get that job, your arrogance will actually hurt you in a cooperative development environment. Your ego can get in the way of logic when it comes to debugging. You'll assume your code is correct and that of your peers is wrong, instead of looking at the code and logically tracing where the issue may lie. (Not that past experience isn't useful in determining which of your fellows probably made the mistake, but humans are incredibly bad at judging themselves objectively.)
You're using it wrong. You want to download an attachment from some forum post, but the site only allows logged in users to download attachments. So, you register an account. You make up an email address@mailinator.com on the spot, and only check it after the sign up. (You check on the website itself, not via POP3.) You get the email to confirm your address, and click the link. Then you forget about the email address and never think about it again.
It is not intended for any site where you need security. Rather, it's intended for those millions of stupid accounts others expect you to create.
Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof." You can think of faith as being an axiom. "As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."
That is why atheists arguing with believers is pointless. Each has their own axioms, and to change those would require an event that would cause them to re-examine their entire lives. An argument at a cocktail party or over teh interweb isn't going to do that.
I think you completely missed what I was saying. First, I wasn't arguing legality, but rather ethics and morality. Second, I wasn't saying that $8 for Netflix is unconscionable. I actually think Netflix is very fair and reasonable. If you follow the thread up, we were discussing places where Netflix isn't unavailable. I'm saying that forcing people to pay $120 for the content is clearly unconscionable, when you consider that the content producers themselves agree that the same content is worth $8 when sold through the Netflix channel, (or $16 if you add Hulu Plus).
Why is parent modded insightful? Not liking the terms of a product doesn't give you the right to find an illegal alternative.
I disagree. If the terms are unconscionable, you have every moral and ethical right to do what you feel is the most fair and just. If a $120 cable package and an $8 Netflix package have the same value, the $120 cable package does seem "excessively unfair to one party", specifically, a "gross disparity in values exchanged". This is not about your relationship with the cable company, or with Netflix, but with the ultimate producer of the content you are trying to consume. This is not an edge case, it's about a gross disparity in price for a large percentage of the total market.
"Simply, people can no longer remember passwords good enough to reliably defend against dictionary attacks, and are much more secure if they choose a password too complicated to remember and then write it down. We're all good at securing small pieces of paper. I recommend that people write their passwords down on a small piece of paper, and keep it with their other valuable small pieces of paper: in their wallet." http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_your.html
In summary, due to the overwhelming number of passwords we're forced to use, humans are not capable of remembering all of them. So, we need to find something that humans are capable of doing. The previous links and quotes may not fully agree on the specifics, but they all are examples of that in action. Unusable security is bad security, as the user will work around it, usually in a manner breaking that security. Good security is usable security.
OTOH, single-sign on doesn't feel right to me. I think it's because you're breaking segregation of security, especially across the boundaries of how important the sites are. ("Use the same sign on for banking and social networking? Sure!") It's not the strongest of reasons, so a more thorough analysis may make me change my mind.
Like having rental details available from RelayRide that says the renter was operating the car?
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. My point was that you can and would get a ticket in the mail, and you would have to prove that someone else was driving. The need to prove that would be a punishment in and of itself. Also, you would be rolling the dice to see if they believe you.
And my other point is that in New York, parking tickets are given to the car, not to the driver. So, the owner would be responsible.
While I'm sure that rental companies have all sorts of loopholes and outs, doing this as a private person could get expensive in terms of time and/or money.
I know someone with an SSN who is not a legal resident.
Short version, he was an alcoholic. (He cleaned up since then, but his current status is beside the point). During the last immigration amnesty, he started the paperwork to become legal. He then started drinking and failed to complete the process.
Which lines and how many lines were infringing is a question of fact, and as such, it is up to the jury to decide the matter. No precedent is set in that regard, as each case is entirely different. Therefore, this isn't going to "open the floodgates" or be a "game changer" or really have any effect at all on the industry or FLOSS community. Also, Oracle did not present any evidence regarding actual damages. Then rather than asking for statutory damages, they asked for actual damages. This, obviously, did not work too well. (Not to mention, the percentage of code that was infringing out of the entire codebase was minuscule, so damages would be hard to prove.)
OTOH, copyright of an API is a question of law. You are conflating the two issues. APIs should not be copyrightable. Finding that APIs are copyrightable would be disastrous for the industry as a whole. However, as there is no copyright, there is no requirement to license the copyright.
Finally, there was a question of patents. An API can be protected by a patent. In this case, the court found that it was not. Therefore, no damages, and no licensing required.
I'm not sure it counts as destruction of evidence, as nothing was truly destroyed, and also, no lawsuit was in progress. If they later claim that the images were never on the site, that would be perjury (and as we all know, probably disprovable with ease.)
However, in the USA, truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander. If there were no untrue statements made, opinions are not defamatory. The Oatmeal comics were indeed up on the site. If FunnyJunk actually files, I'd guess The Oatmeal could file an Anti-SLAPP counter-suit (depending on jurisdiction).
Of course, I didn't RTFA, so mod me down if this is irrelevant and wrong.
HTTP error codes are supplied by the server to indicate the status of the request from the server's point of view. Every response is supplying information to the client that the server knows. It's information from the server's point of view. In this case, a proxy is acting on behalf of the server, and from the proxy's point of view, the request was denied because it was forbidden. (This brings up the issue of proxies that modify content without the end-users permission, but that's a different kettle of fish.)
Let's look at some other response codes.
If you're attempting to access a resource with an ACL, you'll get a "401 Unauthorized". This indicates that, as far as the server knows, you're not authorized to access the resource. You are then given the chance to prove that you are authorized. From the client's point of view, you know you're authorized to access the resource.
If you're rapidly re-requesting a URL, you may get a "429 Too Many Requests " The client may disagree, but from the server's point of view, the client is sending too many requests.
Just because due diligence would kill the market does not mean it should not be required.
Google does do due diligence. They call it "Content-id". ( http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid ) I would argue it goes well above and beyond the due diligence that is required of them. It's pretty much an automated version of what TFA is proposing, and does a better job of it.
With that said, it's impossible to prove that a work doesn't infringe on anyone else's copyright. It's also impossible to prove copyright infringement a priori. You can show that a given work probably infringes someone's copyright on a different work, which is what Content ID does, but you have to be able to compare both works. Furthermore, both parties are claiming copyright to the material. When a user uploads content to Youtube, they are telling Google that they have the right to reproduce that work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to backpedal a bit and say that it is important whether or not he was the Son of God. But, with that said, it is not relevant to how I choose to behave, and also that there is generally little point in discussing it as nobody will change their mind solely from discussion of his divine origin.
I view the teachings as being of a different quality of importance than the source, but not necessarily more or less important. I also believe that belief in his teachings is the key to salvation, and not belief in his divinity. (I know that puts me in conflict with many sects.) Therefore, I believe that convincing others to re-examine his teachings is more important than convincing others to believe in his divinity. I also find that belief in his teachings reaffirms my belief in his divinity, and I hope that others feel the same way, but I will be more than satisfied if people just forgive each other and treat each other with love and respect.
Extremists are crazy, film at eleven. I also share your wish that there weren't quite so many of them. I never considered it my responsibility to push religious extremists towards the middle. I never really thought about it. Much as a typical conservative or liberal never really thinks about pushing their extremists towards the middle. But maybe it's not as hopeless a battle as it seems. It's something worth thinking about.
My point is that discussing his philosophy and teachings is more productive than discussing his divinity, and that making his divinity the point of focus is doing a disservice to his teachings. I think that he would prefer that more people do as he preached, even if they don't believe in his divinity.
Also, I do believe in his divinity, but I don't think it's worth arguing about, because arguing won't change anyone's mind. It's far better to espouse his teachings, which can have a positive effect on people regardless of their beliefs. Further, understanding his teachings is the first step in becoming a Christian. Belief is not the first step. You simply "can't get there from here."
And I don't care if other people think I'm a Christian or not.
Thank you for saying this. I am a Christian. I understand the Atheist viewpoint and find it very tantalizing. However, what makes me remain a Christian is not the bible or creation stories or anything of that sort. It's the moral code that Jesus taught. It's an ideal to strive towards. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." If more people lived life to that moral code, the world would be a better place. Jesus saw that reciprocal violence just escalates into century long feuds, and that the only way to stop it is for someone to just let it go and forgive. He saw that, in general, cooperation leads to greater benefit than competition.
Whether or not he was the Son of God, is irrelevant. From a purely utilitarian perspective, his philosophy is what is important, and his philosophy is very sensible. There are, of course, aspects of the bible that are dated and were relevant at the time, but are no longer so. At the time, cloven hoofed animals were more dangerous to eat. At the time, circumcision did help prevent disease.
Anyway, that's my belief. I try not to force it on anyone, but Atheists who attempt to force their beliefs on the world irritate me.
Not to mention that when you do get that job, your arrogance will actually hurt you in a cooperative development environment. Your ego can get in the way of logic when it comes to debugging. You'll assume your code is correct and that of your peers is wrong, instead of looking at the code and logically tracing where the issue may lie. (Not that past experience isn't useful in determining which of your fellows probably made the mistake, but humans are incredibly bad at judging themselves objectively.)
I agree, however, 1.usa.gov can mitigate this attack by checking each link for a redirect before accepting it into their database.
You've never seen fsck on a mounted file system, have you? Blood everywhere, Even on the ceiling. However, they never did find the bodies.
A beaker made out of frozen acid!
From what I've read, he won't spend time in prison, rather he will pay a fine.
I hate to nitpick, but there's a very minor difference. Kirchner's recent nationalization of Repsol is not an overt act of war.
You're using it wrong. You want to download an attachment from some forum post, but the site only allows logged in users to download attachments. So, you register an account. You make up an email address@mailinator.com on the spot, and only check it after the sign up. (You check on the website itself, not via POP3.) You get the email to confirm your address, and click the link. Then you forget about the email address and never think about it again.
It is not intended for any site where you need security. Rather, it's intended for those millions of stupid accounts others expect you to create.
Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof." You can think of faith as being an axiom. "As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."
That is why atheists arguing with believers is pointless. Each has their own axioms, and to change those would require an event that would cause them to re-examine their entire lives. An argument at a cocktail party or over teh interweb isn't going to do that.
I think you completely missed what I was saying. First, I wasn't arguing legality, but rather ethics and morality. Second, I wasn't saying that $8 for Netflix is unconscionable. I actually think Netflix is very fair and reasonable. If you follow the thread up, we were discussing places where Netflix isn't unavailable. I'm saying that forcing people to pay $120 for the content is clearly unconscionable, when you consider that the content producers themselves agree that the same content is worth $8 when sold through the Netflix channel, (or $16 if you add Hulu Plus).
Why is parent modded insightful? Not liking the terms of a product doesn't give you the right to find an illegal alternative.
I disagree. If the terms are unconscionable, you have every moral and ethical right to do what you feel is the most fair and just. If a $120 cable package and an $8 Netflix package have the same value, the $120 cable package does seem "excessively unfair to one party", specifically, a "gross disparity in values exchanged". This is not about your relationship with the cable company, or with Netflix, but with the ultimate producer of the content you are trying to consume. This is not an edge case, it's about a gross disparity in price for a large percentage of the total market.
I don't know many people that can wake from REM sleep and be 100% in thinking or perceiving.
It's a skill that you can learn. All it takes is practice. It helps to be an insomniac and work at home.
"Simply, people can no longer remember passwords good enough to reliably defend against dictionary attacks, and are much more secure if they choose a password too complicated to remember and then write it down. We're all good at securing small pieces of paper. I recommend that people write their passwords down on a small piece of paper, and keep it with their other valuable small pieces of paper: in their wallet."
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_your.html
"DO use a password manager"
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/08/password_advice.html
"Bruce Schneier Writes Down Passwords. So Can You"
http://www.schneier.com/news-101.html (November 6, 2010)
Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/936/
In summary, due to the overwhelming number of passwords we're forced to use, humans are not capable of remembering all of them. So, we need to find something that humans are capable of doing. The previous links and quotes may not fully agree on the specifics, but they all are examples of that in action. Unusable security is bad security, as the user will work around it, usually in a manner breaking that security. Good security is usable security.
OTOH, single-sign on doesn't feel right to me. I think it's because you're breaking segregation of security, especially across the boundaries of how important the sites are. ("Use the same sign on for banking and social networking? Sure!") It's not the strongest of reasons, so a more thorough analysis may make me change my mind.
Like having rental details available from RelayRide that says the renter was operating the car?
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. My point was that you can and would get a ticket in the mail, and you would have to prove that someone else was driving. The need to prove that would be a punishment in and of itself. Also, you would be rolling the dice to see if they believe you.
And my other point is that in New York, parking tickets are given to the car, not to the driver. So, the owner would be responsible.
While I'm sure that rental companies have all sorts of loopholes and outs, doing this as a private person could get expensive in terms of time and/or money.
In Florida, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you were not driving your car if you get a red light ticket.
The owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation [...] when the driver failed to stop at a traffic signal, unless the owner can establish that [...] The motor vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody, or control of another person;
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.0083.html
(It's been challenged under the due process clause of the Constitution; I'm not sure of the details. )
Also, parking laws in New York are similar.
IOW, the universe uses a PRNG rather than a true RNG.
God probably used srand(time*time) at the start. As time would have been 0, we just need to figure out the algorithm, and we're set!
I know someone with an SSN who is not a legal resident.
Short version, he was an alcoholic. (He cleaned up since then, but his current status is beside the point). During the last immigration amnesty, he started the paperwork to become legal. He then started drinking and failed to complete the process.
Which lines and how many lines were infringing is a question of fact, and as such, it is up to the jury to decide the matter. No precedent is set in that regard, as each case is entirely different. Therefore, this isn't going to "open the floodgates" or be a "game changer" or really have any effect at all on the industry or FLOSS community. Also, Oracle did not present any evidence regarding actual damages. Then rather than asking for statutory damages, they asked for actual damages. This, obviously, did not work too well. (Not to mention, the percentage of code that was infringing out of the entire codebase was minuscule, so damages would be hard to prove.)
OTOH, copyright of an API is a question of law. You are conflating the two issues. APIs should not be copyrightable. Finding that APIs are copyrightable would be disastrous for the industry as a whole. However, as there is no copyright, there is no requirement to license the copyright.
Finally, there was a question of patents. An API can be protected by a patent. In this case, the court found that it was not. Therefore, no damages, and no licensing required.
I'm not sure it counts as destruction of evidence, as nothing was truly destroyed, and also, no lawsuit was in progress. If they later claim that the images were never on the site, that would be perjury (and as we all know, probably disprovable with ease.)
However, in the USA, truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander. If there were no untrue statements made, opinions are not defamatory. The Oatmeal comics were indeed up on the site. If FunnyJunk actually files, I'd guess The Oatmeal could file an Anti-SLAPP counter-suit (depending on jurisdiction).
Of course, I didn't RTFA, so mod me down if this is irrelevant and wrong.
http://archive.org/
HTTP error codes are supplied by the server to indicate the status of the request from the server's point of view. Every response is supplying information to the client that the server knows. It's information from the server's point of view. In this case, a proxy is acting on behalf of the server, and from the proxy's point of view, the request was denied because it was forbidden. (This brings up the issue of proxies that modify content without the end-users permission, but that's a different kettle of fish.)
Let's look at some other response codes.
If you're attempting to access a resource with an ACL, you'll get a "401 Unauthorized". This indicates that, as far as the server knows, you're not authorized to access the resource. You are then given the chance to prove that you are authorized. From the client's point of view, you know you're authorized to access the resource.
If you're rapidly re-requesting a URL, you may get a "429 Too Many Requests " The client may disagree, but from the server's point of view, the client is sending too many requests.
Just because due diligence would kill the market does not mean it should not be required.
Google does do due diligence. They call it "Content-id". ( http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid ) I would argue it goes well above and beyond the due diligence that is required of them. It's pretty much an automated version of what TFA is proposing, and does a better job of it.
With that said, it's impossible to prove that a work doesn't infringe on anyone else's copyright. It's also impossible to prove copyright infringement a priori. You can show that a given work probably infringes someone's copyright on a different work, which is what Content ID does, but you have to be able to compare both works. Furthermore, both parties are claiming copyright to the material. When a user uploads content to Youtube, they are telling Google that they have the right to reproduce that work.