I think that we have to rail against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iraq with little actual knowledge of those countries. Those countries will "always" be our public villians or such even if they are more our allies than enemies.
I don't remember any public vilification of Russia under Yeltsin. And China seemed to be getting decent press until Tianenmen Square.
And giving money to dictatorships that do what we want tends to look pretty bad in the eyes of other countries. Either we support dictatorships, use empty words to decry them, let them continue their crimes unabated, or force their demise. We've done them all, and been hated no matter what
Damn, I wish I had mod points. In some cases (including Iraq), we've done all four to one dictatorship, at various times. And yes, been hated for it each time.
. Rather, a vacuum is left and we find country after country with a youth that has become hedonistic, shallow, selfish, consumerist and unhappy.
With the possible exception of "consumerist", a complaint which has been repeated by every generation about the latest one since at least Ancient Greek times. Looks like it's time for you to set out the porch swing, pick up the shotgun (or metal rake if you're anti-gun), and start practicing the phrase "GET OFF MY LAWN!"
OTOH the US government defines extremism as resorting-to or advocating violence to further a cause;
Which makes a large part of the US Government, including nearly the entire Departments of Justice, Defense, and Fatherl..err, Homeland Security, "extremists".
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.
But, from your reference:
(That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China's extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)
And also excludes places where the entire frigging country is run like a prison and/or labor camp.
And if I were a botnet author, I'd make absolutely sure that signs of such tampering would result in this (the DISABLE_ZOMBIE command in version 1.00 effects the WIPE_WHOLE_DRIVE command in update 1.01). Watch as the self-appointed saviour destroys the data (bla bla backups) on half a million computers world wide.
Just because their computer's being ordered around without their permission doesn't mean that it's right for you to start ordering it around without their permission too. Then there's the issue of liability if something goes wrong, etc.
If their computer is being ordered to beat up my computer, or some other innocent computer, I have every reason and moral right to use my computer to order it to cease and desist.
It would be far better to monitor the botnet, find the computers involved and then help them clean their computer and prevent another infection.
Yeah, that's worked so well so far. Direct action to stop the botnets is dangerous in many ways (not least in that the authorities object to anyone usurping their role especially when they aren't willing to do anything themselves), but there's nothing _wrong_ with it.
Depends on the quality of the allegations. I could pick male-sounding names out of the phone book and make up a bunch of allegations of telephone-related suspected rapists. Doesn't mean the phone company should be turning over conversations or even call record data for all of the arbitrarily accused.
. In the U.S. (U.S.C. 18 Sec. 2256), child pornography does not require visual depictions of actual children in actual or simulated sexual activity to be present. Child pornography also includes visual depictions of simulated children in sexual activity. You know, that web site you visit with the 18 year old dressed like a school girl? If the government want to press a case against you, that counts as possession of child pornography.
That provision was struck down by the US Supreme Court. News Article
Seagate, which claims to be the first company to ship a billion drives, says all those drives amounted to 79 million terabytes of capacity, enough for 158 billion hours of digital video or 1.2 trillion hours of MP3 songs.
Immediately following the announcement, the MPAA and RIAA each sued Seagate for 5 quintillion dollars in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
Oh, quit bitching about patents. Most of the people whining about this on Slashdot have never solved a significant tough problem that has stumped others.
It's not quite a broken-window fallacy. Yes, if the money had to be spent on proprietary software, it wouldn't have been spent on other things, but that's still good for the software companies. A spate of broken windows doesn't help the economy as a whole, but it may help the glazier who repairs them.
Good accessible design benefits everybody. It does not take much extra effort to make a web page accessible. In fact, it takes more effort to make it inaccessible.
For your garden-variety plain HTML page, sure. But anything with any complexity -- anything with a non-linear arrangement -- accessibility becomes a tough job. Making it accessible to the blind can easily take as much time and effort as everything else involved in creating the web page. Testing that accessibility will take longer than testing everything else.
There are laws, like the ADA, which mandate accessibility.
Then let the lawmakers write the web pages too. It's really easy to sit in an office in Washington and impose mandates on the rest of us; I hardly think either the lawmakers or their output deserve respect as a result.
...but the head of the International Phishers Guild says that all of their sites will continue to work with any browser you want. Spokesman Anome Smith says "We will not be following Paypal's lead on this. Popular phishing sites like www.payypal.com, www.paypa1.com, and 192.168.178.287/paypal will all continue to work with any browser you please. "
Nope. Once you changed something, then it's no longer the agreement that Apple agreed to, so the agreement isn't valid and you can't use the software.
I'm with you up until the point where I can't use the software. If I alter the "agreement", it's not valid, and I have all the rights (and only those rights) I'd have without the "agreement". Which includes using the copy of software that I already own.
How is clicking "I agree" any different than doing the same kind of thing when signing up for a bank account or buying something online where you do the same thing? You type your name and click "I agree" to get a loan online. I believe courts have said that it can be considered a signature, at least in the US.
Several differences. One is that there is consideration for my agreement in the loan or bank account case, and none in the EULA case. Another is that if I refuse to click on "I Agree" for the loan, the only thing which happens is I don't get the loan; I'm not prevented from using my computer or anything like that. A third is that there's an ongoing relationship in the loan or bank account case, and none in the EULA case.
Well, actually, I _don't_ have to go to court. First the author of the EULA would have to bring me to court.... and how would they know I'm violating the EULA? They don't even know I have an agreement with them (which in itself argues strongly against there being one).
That's why you have to click "agree" when you first install OS X (that includes first boot on pre-installed computers).
That's tantamount to a signature.
No it isn't; that screen is just a technical barrier to installing the software. Even people who have the software under other licenses (family, developer) have to click through that screen. As one person put it, clicking "I agree" to the EULA screen in order to install the software no more indicates agreement than clicking "I'm a wimp" to exit Wolfenstein 3D means you're a wimp.
If clicking did constitute agreement, then simply hacking the text to say "I disagree" would be an effective way to not agree to the EULA, and that's pretty absurd.
You can legitimately argue that EULAs are invalid for individuals because you can't read them before you open the package, and you can't return the software after you open the package. Fine.
But this place has opened more than one package. They cannot make the same claim.
How about if I argue they are invalid because there is no agreement between the parties, and because there is no consideration granted one of the parties?
I don't think suicide is ever a choice. There are rare cases in war where it has been, falling on your grenade and such, but in real life? It's a last ditch attempt to stop excruciating mental pain.
Like all conspiracies, the conspiracy to squeeze law-abiding drivers probably exists. But, like all conspiracies, pretty much all the people who claim to be victims of it are full of shit.
So the conspiracy exists but all its victims just happen to be guilty? How convenient.
This may come as a shock to many, but in most (all?) states, you are supposed to stop on yellow if possible. Not 'beat the red', but stop. Really.
This is true in Canada, but most US states do not have this language (some do), and the Model Traffic Code does not suggest it. Yellow means nothing more than "a red is coming up".
Subpoenas can be issued without any judge looking at them; they're filed with the court by the attorney and then served. It's up to the poor slob served to file a motion to quash (which she has). Punishment through subpoenas and the discovery process in general is nothing new, alas.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, I wish I had mod points. In some cases (including Iraq), we've done all four to one dictatorship, at various times. And yes, been hated for it each time.
With the possible exception of "consumerist", a complaint which has been repeated by every generation about the latest one since at least Ancient Greek times. Looks like it's time for you to set out the porch swing, pick up the shotgun (or metal rake if you're anti-gun), and start practicing the phrase "GET OFF MY LAWN!"
But, from your reference:
And also excludes places where the entire frigging country is run like a prison and/or labor camp.
Acceptable loss. The botnet is STILL dead.
If their computer is being ordered to beat up my computer, or some other innocent computer, I have every reason and moral right to use my computer to order it to cease and desist.
Yeah, that's worked so well so far. Direct action to stop the botnets is dangerous in many ways (not least in that the authorities object to anyone usurping their role especially when they aren't willing to do anything themselves), but there's nothing _wrong_ with it.
Immediately following the announcement, the MPAA and RIAA each sued Seagate for 5 quintillion dollars in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
There's a reason the empty center tank is also called the "Pacific" tank.
Neither have most successful patent applicants.
It's not quite a broken-window fallacy. Yes, if the money had to be spent on proprietary software, it wouldn't have been spent on other things, but that's still good for the software companies. A spate of broken windows doesn't help the economy as a whole, but it may help the glazier who repairs them.
And government decides it doesn't have to follow the laws. What next, candidate kisses baby, sun rises in East?
For your garden-variety plain HTML page, sure. But anything with any complexity -- anything with a non-linear arrangement -- accessibility becomes a tough job. Making it accessible to the blind can easily take as much time and effort as everything else involved in creating the web page. Testing that accessibility will take longer than testing everything else.
Then let the lawmakers write the web pages too. It's really easy to sit in an office in Washington and impose mandates on the rest of us; I hardly think either the lawmakers or their output deserve respect as a result.
...but the head of the International Phishers Guild says that all of their sites will continue to work with any browser you want. Spokesman Anome Smith says "We will not be following Paypal's lead on this. Popular phishing sites like www.payypal.com, www.paypa1.com, and 192.168.178.287/paypal will all continue to work with any browser you please. "
I'm with you up until the point where I can't use the software. If I alter the "agreement", it's not valid, and I have all the rights (and only those rights) I'd have without the "agreement". Which includes using the copy of software that I already own.
Several differences. One is that there is consideration for my agreement in the loan or bank account case, and none in the EULA case. Another is that if I refuse to click on "I Agree" for the loan, the only thing which happens is I don't get the loan; I'm not prevented from using my computer or anything like that. A third is that there's an ongoing relationship in the loan or bank account case, and none in the EULA case.
Well, actually, I _don't_ have to go to court. First the author of the EULA would have to bring me to court.... and how would they know I'm violating the EULA? They don't even know I have an agreement with them (which in itself argues strongly against there being one).
No it isn't; that screen is just a technical barrier to installing the software. Even people who have the software under other licenses (family, developer) have to click through that screen. As one person put it, clicking "I agree" to the EULA screen in order to install the software no more indicates agreement than clicking "I'm a wimp" to exit Wolfenstein 3D means you're a wimp.
If clicking did constitute agreement, then simply hacking the text to say "I disagree" would be an effective way to not agree to the EULA, and that's pretty absurd.
How about if I argue they are invalid because there is no agreement between the parties, and because there is no consideration granted one of the parties?
So the conspiracy exists but all its victims just happen to be guilty? How convenient.
Subpoenas can be issued without any judge looking at them; they're filed with the court by the attorney and then served. It's up to the poor slob served to file a motion to quash (which she has). Punishment through subpoenas and the discovery process in general is nothing new, alas.