It is your right to be protected. The police will respond to a dangerous situation, if for no other reason than to prevent it from escalating.
No it isn't, and the police have no specific duty to respond - this was decided by SCOTUS (other countries may differ). The problem, as stated elsewhere, is that, too often, the bullies are protected because of who they are (football player) or who their parents are (local bigshot).
The reason it isn't acceptable for a kid to fight back is because that's the duty of the campus staff. A kid who is being bullied is well within his rights to contact the teachers, and/or police. They are the ones who deal with this crap.
It isn't the duty of police to defend you personally, so why would it be the duty of the campus staff? It is your duty and right to protect yourself.
You think you've got problems? I've been playing The Sims. Now I can't stop myself from cooking, watching TV, going to work, and attempting to build relationships.
That's odd - I've been playing the Sims and now I like to wall people up in my basement. I just can't help myself!
ave said passwords. It sounds like a good idea to use a ridiculously long password, write it down, put it in a locked safe, and require written authorization to get to it. Well, it sounds good until a mission critical server crashes, reboots, requires the root password to go into maintenance mode to run fsck, and the person/people with the safe combination is/are unavailable.
Then don't require the root password to fsck the disk. Face it: if I have physical access to your box, you have no security, unless you want an AES encrypted FS.
Maybe if they didn't choose to violate the law then they wouldn't have such a hard time getting a job.
Yeah right, like violating the law makes you insuitable for any decent jobs.
I sure don't want somebody who cares so little about the lives of others working for me. What if they caused the death of somebody else while I was paying them?
Depends on the job - there's little opportunity to kill someone in most office jobs.
Billy and Jamal will just have to live with their trailer park jobs, I'm not opening myself up to that sort of liability.
I would still be happier with a photo on the credit/debit card, Its a little more dificult to steal my face.
Only moderately. All you have to do is replace the photo with one that looks like you. Of course, a lot of people still don't look at the photo, especially if they're an internet shop.
It distorts the market by creating a free rider problem. Consider the average VC. He funds 10 companies, knowing that (on average) 7 will go bust, 2 will toddle along, and one will strike it it big. He will make his money out of the last one. But the 7 bankruptcies will cost other people money. In a perfect market, he would have to bear the full risk of his investments.
In your example, the VC is only an investor - if corporations didn't exist, he'd still be out his money on company 1-7, but the people who started those companies would be in personal BK, which means they'd have trouble starting another company. This, in turn, shrinks the pool of successful companies, as a lot of successful companies are founded after one or two failures.
Hint a software engineer is paid about 15 dollars an hour in India. If that becomes the prevailing wage of IT work you can kiss your nice house and endless supply of cool new gadgets goodbye.
If I made $15/hr in India, I'd be a fucking prince! As it stands, I make about 50% more than the average wage, so I may be able to swing $22/hr.
For a stock price so incredibly high, if I were a shareholder I would definitely want updates.
Bullshit. Stock price is largely irrelevant to a company's worth. Market cap is what you're looking for. Thing is, Google has always said specifically what they intended to do, and they hold all the votes - you got into bed with your eyes open, so you have to deal with that.
Getting ahold of the required explosives is much more difficult in the USA.
Let's see, put on a toolbelt and a flannel shirt, go to a construction supply company, show a driver's license and a credit card? Has it changed markedly in the past 5 years?
You've hit the nail on the head with this one: We produce more than enough food for everyone, and we haven't even come close to using all available land.
Wait until the oil runs out - our amount of arable land will almost certainly drop.
Re:Private enviro-bacterial research organization?
on
Bacteria Eat Styrofoam
·
· Score: 1
I know from my experiences that government regulations on polluting seem to have a positive effect of making the world cleaner, but they also have a negative effect of reducing a company's ability to provide their customers with a product or service at the best price. Sure, the average socialist will say that corporations just want to pollute the world so they can make a buck, but that's not the case: corporations want to provide the best price to their consumers, which is why pollution has tended to be so obvious. It also seems to me that there are new and amazing ways to fix the problem of pollution without only making the source stop.
The average capitalist will also say the same ting with different words - pollution is called an externality and requiring that companies pay to reduce the amount of it is simply making them pay the true cost of production. Naturally, this increases their price. Oddly enough, it also makes the cleanup cheaper, as companies like to reduce their cost.
I just don't get your hate for any sort of government regulation - socialist in the US is generally used as an insult.
>The statement is not different from saying "Skype has verified that Intel processors do have the capabilities to process the intensive conference calls, and since they are the only ones we have certified at this point, we will write the software to only allow them to use the feature."
It is different - they did it because Intel paid them to do it.
t looks exactly like a DMCA violation to me. The only cavat is it's your copyright. However, legally, that hasn't matter that much...there were people who produced CSS-protected content and said they had no problem with DeCSS, and the people doing the suing were not holding any copyrights, yet look at how that turned out.
I find it difficult to believe that any court will convict someone for breaking encryption that affects their own copyrighted works. Also, the DMCA is criminal law, so you can't sue, only prosecute. A third point is that this isn't affecting the encryption, but the decision whether to allow 10 users in the convo.
The second part of your argument is that it will reduce the number of skilled people. However, I submit that market forces will make sure that as long as skills are in demand, a supply will be created. And it is extremely possible to obtain the relevant skills in a legal and ethical manner.
Quote: You want the bot-drones? Well, while this does have my full support, you can already hear the outcry from computer illiterates who fell for the marketing hype around the 'net and "how easy it is to get on", only to realize now that if they don't have a clue what their computer is really doing on the net, they're now with one foot in jail when they even go online. Can you see the Sun headline already? "Granny charged with computer crime!"
Actually the second part argues that this will cast a wide net and pick up a bunch of non-criminals.
No it isn't, it's more like a denial of, say, a service. A boycott is you and your slashbuddies refusing to buy brand X. A DOS is you and your slashbuddies refusing to allow others to buy brand X. See the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
It is your right to be protected. The police will respond to a dangerous situation, if for no other reason than to prevent it from escalating.
No it isn't, and the police have no specific duty to respond - this was decided by SCOTUS (other countries may differ). The problem, as stated elsewhere, is that, too often, the bullies are protected because of who they are (football player) or who their parents are (local bigshot).
The reason it isn't acceptable for a kid to fight back is because that's the duty of the campus staff. A kid who is being bullied is well within his rights to contact the teachers, and/or police. They are the ones who deal with this crap.
It isn't the duty of police to defend you personally, so why would it be the duty of the campus staff? It is your duty and right to protect yourself.
You think you've got problems? I've been playing The Sims. Now I can't stop myself from cooking, watching TV, going to work, and attempting to build relationships.
That's odd - I've been playing the Sims and now I like to wall people up in my basement. I just can't help myself!
It's important to remember: Columbine was an anti-bullying incident.
No, Columbine was a psycho killer incident.
If the game advocates violence as a way to solve the problem,
What do you expect? Violence works, unless the bullies are backed up by the school administration.
ave said passwords. It sounds like a good idea to use a ridiculously long password, write it down, put it in a locked safe, and require written authorization to get to it. Well, it sounds good until a mission critical server crashes, reboots, requires the root password to go into maintenance mode to run fsck, and the person/people with the safe combination is/are unavailable.
Then don't require the root password to fsck the disk. Face it: if I have physical access to your box, you have no security, unless you want an AES encrypted FS.
Maybe if they didn't choose to violate the law then they wouldn't have such a hard time getting a job.
Yeah right, like violating the law makes you insuitable for any decent jobs.
I sure don't want somebody who cares so little about the lives of others working for me. What if they caused the death of somebody else while I was paying them?
Depends on the job - there's little opportunity to kill someone in most office jobs.
Billy and Jamal will just have to live with their trailer park jobs, I'm not opening myself up to that sort of liability.
Either that or they could get themselves elected.
not really, they're still less than an order of magnitude apart... who's quibbling about such a small difference...
Inch, cm, what's the diff?
I would still be happier with a photo on the credit/debit card, Its a little more dificult to steal my face.
Only moderately. All you have to do is replace the photo with one that looks like you. Of course, a lot of people still don't look at the photo, especially if they're an internet shop.
It distorts the market by creating a free rider problem. Consider the average VC. He funds 10 companies, knowing that (on average) 7 will go bust, 2 will toddle along, and one will strike it it big. He will make his money out of the last one. But the 7 bankruptcies will cost other people money. In a perfect market, he would have to bear the full risk of his investments.
In your example, the VC is only an investor - if corporations didn't exist, he'd still be out his money on company 1-7, but the people who started those companies would be in personal BK, which means they'd have trouble starting another company. This, in turn, shrinks the pool of successful companies, as a lot of successful companies are founded after one or two failures.
How about we announce that we will never, ever do another "computer favor" for a gal that we like, in hopes of "hooking up with them."
How about you grow a set, take her dancing and have her rip your pants off afterwards?
Hint a software engineer is paid about 15 dollars an hour in India. If that becomes the prevailing wage of IT work you can kiss your nice house and endless supply of cool new gadgets goodbye.
If I made $15/hr in India, I'd be a fucking prince! As it stands, I make about 50% more than the average wage, so I may be able to swing $22/hr.
The very idea of a company as something that limits liability of the owners and operators is a very anti-free market construct.
How so? It would appear to be orthogonal to the freeness of a market.
For a stock price so incredibly high, if I were a shareholder I would definitely want updates.
Bullshit. Stock price is largely irrelevant to a company's worth. Market cap is what you're looking for. Thing is, Google has always said specifically what they intended to do, and they hold all the votes - you got into bed with your eyes open, so you have to deal with that.
It would be equivalent to committing corporate Hari-Kari.
What the hell is that, a new dance step?
Getting ahold of the required explosives is much more difficult in the USA.
Let's see, put on a toolbelt and a flannel shirt, go to a construction supply company, show a driver's license and a credit card? Has it changed markedly in the past 5 years?
You've hit the nail on the head with this one: We produce more than enough food for everyone, and we haven't even come close to using all available land.
Wait until the oil runs out - our amount of arable land will almost certainly drop.
I know from my experiences that government regulations on polluting seem to have a positive effect of making the world cleaner, but they also have a negative effect of reducing a company's ability to provide their customers with a product or service at the best price. Sure, the average socialist will say that corporations just want to pollute the world so they can make a buck, but that's not the case: corporations want to provide the best price to their consumers, which is why pollution has tended to be so obvious. It also seems to me that there are new and amazing ways to fix the problem of pollution without only making the source stop.
The average capitalist will also say the same ting with different words - pollution is called an externality and requiring that companies pay to reduce the amount of it is simply making them pay the true cost of production. Naturally, this increases their price. Oddly enough, it also makes the cleanup cheaper, as companies like to reduce their cost.
I just don't get your hate for any sort of government regulation - socialist in the US is generally used as an insult.
It is different - they did it because Intel paid them to do it.
t looks exactly like a DMCA violation to me. The only cavat is it's your copyright. However, legally, that hasn't matter that much...there were people who produced CSS-protected content and said they had no problem with DeCSS, and the people doing the suing were not holding any copyrights, yet look at how that turned out.
I find it difficult to believe that any court will convict someone for breaking encryption that affects their own copyrighted works. Also, the DMCA is criminal law, so you can't sue, only prosecute. A third point is that this isn't affecting the encryption, but the decision whether to allow 10 users in the convo.
It's not fraud. Get your facts and definitions correct. Talking like a lawyer does not make you a lawyer.
No, it's product tying.
The moral of the story? Don't kill anyone.
Killing is fine, just don't murder anyone.
The second part of your argument is that it will reduce the number of skilled people. However, I submit that market forces will make sure that as long as skills are in demand, a supply will be created. And it is extremely possible to obtain the relevant skills in a legal and ethical manner.
Quote:
You want the bot-drones? Well, while this does have my full support, you can already hear the outcry from computer illiterates who fell for the marketing hype around the 'net and "how easy it is to get on", only to realize now that if they don't have a clue what their computer is really doing on the net, they're now with one foot in jail when they even go online. Can you see the Sun headline already? "Granny charged with computer crime!"
Actually the second part argues that this will cast a wide net and pick up a bunch of non-criminals.
IMHO, DDoSs is like a boycott.
No it isn't, it's more like a denial of, say, a service. A boycott is you and your slashbuddies refusing to buy brand X. A DOS is you and your slashbuddies refusing to allow others to buy brand X. See the difference?
and then it is no longer water.
No, it's either water ice or water vapor. By the time it hits plasma, it's hydrogen plasma and oxygen plasma.