Smart people who get into our universities are highly motivated to be successful... we should attach a green card to the back of every masters degree and Ph.d we issue to a foreign student on the condition they seek employment/start a business here in the US. More startups means more jobs means a faster growing economy.
Obviously you're not a person who has recently had to seek employment in a technology related field, and "competing" with 600,000 H-1B visa holders.
Though actually, giving them green cards might actually be better than giving them OPT followed by H-1B like we do now. With a green card they're on a roughly even keel with citizens, rather than employers looking at them as indentured labor who can't quit lest they lose their visa.
Is it? Swartz broke the law, knowingly and willingly. The government didn't kill him. He killed himself.
The government threatened him with a fate worse than death, and had the capacity to carry it out. He chose death as the superior alternative.
He was all set to have his day in court to fight the charges and bring about awareness to the issues. Instead, like the little coward he was, he killed himself.
He'd have had his day in court. No one would cover it. He wouldn't be permitted to make most of his arguments ("Irrelevant"). He'd be duly found guilty, and sentenced to decades in a Federal prison. And no one would care. By suiciding he brought a hell of a lot more attention to it than he could have by standing trial.
Handling cash isn't free either. I suspect he biggest advantage of cash (for the merchants) isn't avoiding the credit card fees, but evading the taxes.
...yet ASCAP and BMI frequently go after those who allow public domain music to be played claiming the arrangement was copyrighted by one of their members (and it's up to you to prove it wasn't)
Just more proof that copyright is only for the big guys.
Actually I can tear down the house as long as I continue to pay the mortgage. The mortgage owner has no right to sue unless and until they don't get their money.
Might want to read your note again. A provision specifying that deliberately damaging or the value of the property (and thus destroying their security interest) is a default is nigh-universal. On default the entire balance of the mortgage becomes due, and if you don't pay up, yes, you can be sued.
We feel that if the right thing is done every time, we would can eliminate our issues and still release at the same pace.
Nope. Writing better code generally requires more time. People will try to tell you otherwise, but either they're just off base, or they're confused by the fact that the amortized time of writing good code is less than of writing code as quickly as possible. That is, if you write all quick+dirty code, you reach a point each new feature you add takes much longer than if you had written all good code. However, at any given stage, it's quicker to write the quick+dirty code.
And of course, once you're in the hole and full of quick+dirty code, it takes extra time to replace it with good code.
Thanks, I was looking for that one, but 1) I thought it was Asimov and 2) Clarke didn't say "expert"
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
A variant of the Heinlein version shows up attributed to Alec Issagonis (designer of the original Mini Cooper) -- "An expert is someone who tells you why you can't do something". Possibly Heinlein lifted it from him.
Techs everywhere need to learn this important lesson: Never Sign Anything unless you are also offered on the same piece of paper a guarantee of you what you receive in return.
Neat fact about contracts: consideration is required. Signing a paper which says "I won't tell anyone about this vulnerability I've already found or this NDA" doesn't create a contract.
Unfortunately, the courts are ridiculously authority-biased and a 20-year-old trying to use some technical legal points against a university (representing authority) is just likely to get the judge mad at him.
...it seems like any such scheme would cost far, far, far, more to administer than it could realistically obtain in revenue. And that's on both the taxpayer side and the government side. Can you imagine trying to audit this?
"In the case of the United States, the imposition of rules and limits on individual behavior to protect the commons is not, at present, a realistic prospect; the population is simply not having it. But how much longer before this freedom of choice is regarded as an impossible luxury?"
And who is Mr. Berman comparing the US unfavorably to here? The social democracies of Europe? No. Actually, it's totalitarian China -- the immediately preceding sentences: "Of course, authoritarian systems don't have these problems, which is a good indicator of how things will probably develop. Under the name of âoeharmony,â for example, China regulates its citizens for what it perceives to be the common good. Hence the famous one-child policy, introduced in 1979, supposedly prevented more than 300 million births over the next twenty-nine years in a country that was threatened by its own population density. "
Hopefully some chain will bring out Proper Horseburgers.
I can see the ads now: "Tesco's horseburgers were less than 30% horse. Our horseburgers are the genuine article, 100% pure horse, no byproducts, no fillers, and certainly no beef!"
It makes no sense period. You don't use the same cut of meat you'd use to make a great steak to grind for burgers.
Sure you do. If you're cutting up a beef sirloin, you're guaranteed to have some bits left over that are perfectly good meat, but for some reason won't make a good saleable steak (too small, too odd shaped, maybe with a piece of gristle running right through the middle). Take those bits, toss them in the grinder, and you've got good hamburger meat.
1) The check is not in the mail 2) They didn't give at the office. 3) He will come in your mouth. 3a) (nor will he still respect you in the morning. He doesn't respect you NOW) 4) The man from the government is not there to help you 5) The dog HAS bitten people before
Those are the limits on rights. "Public safety" is a bullshit term that doesn't actually mean anything.
It should mean something to you. French Revolution... Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just, etc -- the Committee of Public Safety. Mostly known for beheading political opponents and anyone else whose head fit in a guillotine, during the Reign of Terror.
I believe I've seen claims that Swartz was suffering from depression, which is probably what this refers to. Clinical depression isn't a "differing opinion" per se.
The mental health community fails to consider that there are situations where "depression" is a healthy reaction to a situation, not something to give you happy pills for. For instance, if a Federal Prosecutor is threatening you with 35+ years in prison and a felony record if you don't abandon your principles, or no less than 6 months (by some reports) and that same felony record if you DO abandon your principles, then you might be depressed yet mentally healthy.
It's a bit disingenuous to drive someone to suicide and then claim that the fact that they did so means they were mentally ill. It's kind of like throwing someone in the East River wearing concrete shoes and blaming them for being unable to swim.
A key part of civil disobedience is that you actually take the rap for the law you're breaking. You dare the authorities to arrest you, giving them a choice to enforce an unjust because in doing so, they have to make a choice between enforcing an unjust law or not.
And so a simple and effective tactic against civil disobedience is to raise the sentence to the point where if you take the rap, you're out of the picture. This has been done. The enforcers don't care if they are enforcing an unjust law or not; they are either true believers or sociopaths or both.
Civil disobedience is ineffective for a number of reasons: 1) Because it was associated with civil rights, anyone using it nowadays is considered to be somehow cheapening it if their cause isn't as big as civil rights. "MLK was trying to promote equality, you're just a smelly geek".
2) Nobody cares if geeks get thrown in prison. It barely makes the tech section of the newspaper.
3) Increases in sentences mean anyone practicing civil disobedience is neutralized. Either they plead out (which destroys their integrity and thus their credibility) and/or they spend so long in jail that everyone forgets them, and when they get out they have a felony conviction and are thus unable to function in society.
To quote myself: We (those of us in the US and Western Europe, anyway) have a stable system of government. What this means is that there are negative feedbacks in the system which counter any attempt to change it. Furthermore, the systems learn: When a tactic manages to overwhelm the existing feedback mechanisms and cause an actual change, new feedback mechanisms are set up to render that tactic ineffective in the future. Thus the more the system changes, the more stable it becomes.
Correction: if you are one of the diligent people who actually clicks on the SSL information dialogue and checks the certificate chain, then they would have to get the right CA in order to fool you.
I think it's safe to assume that the surveillance agencies of any given government have the private keys of every CA located within their borders. And probably those of their allies, and as many others as they've been able to obtain.
Damnit, I was just about to post that comment. So instead I'll point out that the expression is "Cue the comment" -- it's not being entering a line, rather it has been notified that it is next.
Any defendant is free to request a jury trial. Nobody is obligated to accept a plea bargain.
Sure. But if you don't, you're playing dice with your life -- and the dice are loaded by the other side.
The courts have an adversarial relationship with the law enforcement agencies.
No, they don't. The courts are mostly presided over by former prosecutors.
The prosecutors determine what charges to press based upon the results of an investigation conducted by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.
The prosecutors are not above various tactics like deliberately overcharging in order to present a "bargain" which is all they can actually demonstrate in the first place. Or "shotgun justice" where they charge you with everything they can think of, relying on the pure quantity of charges to get a guilty verdict on one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you're not a person who has recently had to seek employment in a technology related field, and "competing" with 600,000 H-1B visa holders.
Though actually, giving them green cards might actually be better than giving them OPT followed by H-1B like we do now. With a green card they're on a roughly even keel with citizens, rather than employers looking at them as indentured labor who can't quit lest they lose their visa.
The government threatened him with a fate worse than death, and had the capacity to carry it out. He chose death as the superior alternative.
He'd have had his day in court. No one would cover it. He wouldn't be permitted to make most of his arguments ("Irrelevant"). He'd be duly found guilty, and sentenced to decades in a Federal prison. And no one would care. By suiciding he brought a hell of a lot more attention to it than he could have by standing trial.
Handling cash isn't free either. I suspect he biggest advantage of cash (for the merchants) isn't avoiding the credit card fees, but evading the taxes.
...yet ASCAP and BMI frequently go after those who allow public domain music to be played claiming the arrangement was copyrighted by one of their members (and it's up to you to prove it wasn't)
Just more proof that copyright is only for the big guys.
You might want to try splitting them correctly.
Might want to read your note again. A provision specifying that deliberately damaging or the value of the property (and thus destroying their security interest) is a default is nigh-universal. On default the entire balance of the mortgage becomes due, and if you don't pay up, yes, you can be sued.
Nope. Writing better code generally requires more time. People will try to tell you otherwise, but either they're just off base, or they're confused by the fact that the amortized time of writing good code is less than of writing code as quickly as possible. That is, if you write all quick+dirty code, you reach a point each new feature you add takes much longer than if you had written all good code. However, at any given stage, it's quicker to write the quick+dirty code.
And of course, once you're in the hole and full of quick+dirty code, it takes extra time to replace it with good code.
Thanks, I was looking for that one, but
1) I thought it was Asimov and
2) Clarke didn't say "expert"
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
A variant of the Heinlein version shows up attributed to Alec Issagonis (designer of the original Mini Cooper) -- "An expert is someone who tells you why you can't do something". Possibly Heinlein lifted it from him.
"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it" (from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long)
Neat fact about contracts: consideration is required. Signing a paper which says "I won't tell anyone about this vulnerability I've already found or this NDA" doesn't create a contract.
Unfortunately, the courts are ridiculously authority-biased and a 20-year-old trying to use some technical legal points against a university (representing authority) is just likely to get the judge mad at him.
...it seems like any such scheme would cost far, far, far, more to administer than it could realistically obtain in revenue. And that's on both the taxpayer side and the government side. Can you imagine trying to audit this?
And who is Mr. Berman comparing the US unfavorably to here? The social democracies of Europe? No. Actually, it's totalitarian China -- the immediately preceding sentences:
"Of course, authoritarian systems don't have these problems, which is a good indicator of how things will probably develop. Under the name of âoeharmony,â for example, China regulates its citizens for what it perceives to be the common good. Hence the famous one-child policy, introduced in 1979, supposedly prevented more than 300 million births over the next twenty-nine years in a country that was threatened by its own population density. "
I can see the ads now: "Tesco's horseburgers were less than 30% horse. Our horseburgers are the genuine article, 100% pure horse, no byproducts, no fillers, and certainly no beef!"
That would be totally wrong, labeling a hot dog as a hamburger.
Sure you do. If you're cutting up a beef sirloin, you're guaranteed to have some bits left over that are perfectly good meat, but for some reason won't make a good saleable steak (too small, too odd shaped, maybe with a piece of gristle running right through the middle). Take those bits, toss them in the grinder, and you've got good hamburger meat.
If you take a sirloin steak and put it in a meat grinder, you can form what comes out into a patty and it sticks together just fine.
1) The check is not in the mail
2) They didn't give at the office.
3) He will come in your mouth.
3a) (nor will he still respect you in the morning. He doesn't respect you NOW)
4) The man from the government is not there to help you
5) The dog HAS bitten people before
It should mean something to you. French Revolution... Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just, etc -- the Committee of Public Safety. Mostly known for beheading political opponents and anyone else whose head fit in a guillotine, during the Reign of Terror.
The mental health community fails to consider that there are situations where "depression" is a healthy reaction to a situation, not something to give you happy pills for. For instance, if a Federal Prosecutor is threatening you with 35+ years in prison and a felony record if you don't abandon your principles, or no less than 6 months (by some reports) and that same felony record if you DO abandon your principles, then you might be depressed yet mentally healthy.
It's a bit disingenuous to drive someone to suicide and then claim that the fact that they did so means they were mentally ill. It's kind of like throwing someone in the East River wearing concrete shoes and blaming them for being unable to swim.
And so a simple and effective tactic against civil disobedience is to raise the sentence to the point where if you take the rap, you're out of the picture. This has been done. The enforcers don't care if they are enforcing an unjust law or not; they are either true believers or sociopaths or both.
Civil disobedience is ineffective for a number of reasons:
1) Because it was associated with civil rights, anyone using it nowadays is considered to be somehow cheapening it if their cause isn't as big as civil rights. "MLK was trying to promote equality, you're just a smelly geek".
2) Nobody cares if geeks get thrown in prison. It barely makes the tech section of the newspaper.
3) Increases in sentences mean anyone practicing civil disobedience is neutralized. Either they plead out (which destroys their integrity and thus their credibility) and/or they spend so long in jail that everyone forgets them, and when they get out they have a felony conviction and are thus unable to function in society.
To quote myself:
We (those of us in the US and Western Europe, anyway) have a stable system of government. What this means is that there are negative feedbacks in the system which counter any attempt to change it. Furthermore, the systems learn: When a tactic manages to overwhelm the existing feedback mechanisms and cause an actual change, new feedback mechanisms are set up to render that tactic ineffective in the future. Thus the more the system changes, the more stable it becomes.
I think it's safe to assume that the surveillance agencies of any given government have the private keys of every CA located within their borders. And probably those of their allies, and as many others as they've been able to obtain.
Damnit, I was just about to post that comment. So instead I'll point out that the expression is "Cue the comment" -- it's not being entering a line, rather it has been notified that it is next.
Sure. But if you don't, you're playing dice with your life -- and the dice are loaded by the other side.
No, they don't. The courts are mostly presided over by former prosecutors.
It wasn't our galaxy! The Galactic Empire fell long before they could have managed to reach here.