I opened this article and was somehow in a different users account; I refreshed several times, and got at least a half dozen user accounts other than my own.
I'm sick of having two extreme parties with nothing in the middle.
Uh, we have two main parties in the US, one pretty right wing and one merely center-right. If you think the Democrats are extreme, that just shows how far the Overton window has shifted in the US.
The Republican position on free trade is actually a largely 1990s thing.
Right, except for the free trade stuff like CAFTA, which was signed in 2005 - under a Republican president and Congress. The truth of the matter is that corporatists have largely overtaken economic policy in America, and it doesn't much matter which party is running things.
That's a lousy conspiracy theory; you didn't even work in black helicopters.
Also:
... the party that pushed free trade on the world since 1916, and is in complete control of the US government.
Who was the US president that signed the NAFTA agreement? Who was the president who signed the CAFTA agreement? Which party ran both houses of our Congress - when CAFTA was passed into law, and held open voting in the House for an hour and a half beyond the normal allotted time, in order to get the measure passed 217 to 215?
Not to say that the Democrats didn't do their part, but your knowledge of history - with respect to free trade at least - seems a bit deficient.
In Stockholm, no one questions one's usage, even on genuinely unlimited Internet accounts, ie, unless you're accessing unlawful content.
There, unlimited means umlimited .
I think it's a matter of rights of individuals & profits of companies.
Notice that the person is referring to unlimited accounts, and that "unlimited means unlimited" in the context of how much bandwidth one can consume having subscribed to such an account. The logical conclusion, then, is that right being referred to is the right to get what you were sold and paid for, without secret limitations.
Excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide, released as the result of burning fossil fuels extracted after lying sequestered under the ground for millions of years, is a pollutant, you insensitive clod.
I'll take that risk over the risk of being captured and/or killed because I was unable to defend myself with anything more effective than strong words. Humanity has been using firearms for hundreds of years to deter this type of behavior. Why the hell is everyone so squeamish about it?
Again, I think you misunderstand the objection. I personally have no problem with firearms - I love them, collect them, and know quite well how to use them. The objection is to the danger of stupid, frightened people with full auto firearms.
At a shooting range, I have to content with the asshole next to me who the range officer has to tell multiple times to only point the weapons downrange, or the pud shooting his 9 sideways with the bullets hitting everything but the target and his brass going over the divider into my lane, or the guy who actually bought a.50 Desert Eagle and thinks he's hot shit. I don't want any of these people standing next to me in a controlled fire situation, let alone a free form firefight where everyone's got full auto rifles.
Then those laws need to be changed. A rifle secured in a weapons locker aboard ship is no threat to anyone
Ok, but there's still multiple jurisdictions across the world to contend with. And then there's the issue of who's got keys to the locker.
This isn't a problem with guns, it's a problem with the practicalities.
I don't think the argument was about the relative combat skills of the involved parties, so much, as the risk posed by handing military weapons to untrained people who may be traveling through troubled waters. Say the guy with the rifle starts shooting at a nearby boat and it's fishermen, rather than pirates - something that could easily happen if visibility isn't the best and/or the guy is spooked. Or say pirates are onboard and you're trying to repel them, and he decides to shoot at you rather than the pirates because he isn't trained to deal with combat situations and just starts shooting.
And that's to say nothing of the issues of weapon possession and use when you're in territorial waters of another country. There's many ports of call where a ship would be liable to search and probable prosecution of the crew for having military-type weapons on board, including here in the US.
I think the poster's point was that the sailors using the weapons weren't actually trained military folk, but your basic sailors on merchant and shipping vessels.
None of what you write is surprising, unexpected, or particularly different from my own experience.
But that's why I said that people here at Slashdot need to do some work. When they say "C'mon, they CANNOT outlaw THAT," you have to be ready to say "They can, they have, and here's an article that shows that and the effects it had."
Yeah, so it turns out that absent any major concern on the part of the electorate, politicians listen to the people who talk to them the loudest - folks with money to lobby them. And while this site is chock full of people who like to write righteous screeds about the injustices of copyright law, most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
Let me repeat that: most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
They don't know, don't pay attention, haven't had it be a problem for them, and don't care. Go and ask your parents, or your non-tech savvy siblings, or whomever else. Most, if not all of them, won't know or care. And the reason for that is because nearly all the people that do care spend their time writing righteous screeds about it on Slashdot.
If you want to make a difference, sure - complain about it, but not here. Complain about it to your congresscritters; but not just them - you've got to make other people give a shit, and that means talking to someone who's not here to listen to the preaching at choir practice.
If normal people start giving a shit, politicians will change their tune, because that's how politics works. So get the fuck off Slashdot and go talk to regular people who don't know and don't care, and inform them and get them to give a shit. It does matter, and you can convince people that it matters. But you have to actually do some work.
I think the proper word we are all hunting for is "activist"
Until we know who did it and why, it's not reasonable to consider them activists, terrorists, or anything really but criminals and/or saboteurs. They did trespass and destroy property, so that's a crime, and apparently did so with the intention of disrupting communications systems, which would be sabotage.
Yeah, but so what? There's a perfectly serviceable to DB2 in most common programming languages - C/C++, Java, Python, Perl, Perl. Hell, on *nix you can use the db2cli client and interface with the database using shell scripting tools. Mostly this is for people running tools that only use MySQL, and it's only to replace them with DB2 eventually - I've worked on at least one such project (a disaster, though through no fault of DB2 or the cadres of IBM Global Services consultants that I dealt with).
Slashdot Mirror
I had yours, too. I think you had mod points (didn't use them).
Good thing I use throwaway information for signing up for sites like this.
I'm getting a lot of other people's accounts - including their private, unpublished emails and mod points.
WTF?
I'm having this problem; I've gotten several other accounts with their prefs, private email addresses, and mod points (in 2 instances).
Shit's busted.
I've gotten 8 other accounts, with their preferences and hidden emails, as well as mod points.
It only stated happening today, too.
I opened this article and was somehow in a different users account; I refreshed several times, and got at least a half dozen user accounts other than my own.
Actually, I was just kidding, but now that you mention it, he does sound like kind of an asshole.
Probably not. You sound like an asshole. ;-)
No, it shows how far to the right things have shifted - I'm a green.
Uh, we have two main parties in the US, one pretty right wing and one merely center-right. If you think the Democrats are extreme, that just shows how far the Overton window has shifted in the US.
Right, except for the free trade stuff like CAFTA, which was signed in 2005 - under a Republican president and Congress. The truth of the matter is that corporatists have largely overtaken economic policy in America, and it doesn't much matter which party is running things.
That's a lousy conspiracy theory; you didn't even work in black helicopters.
Also:
Who was the US president that signed the NAFTA agreement? Who was the president who signed the CAFTA agreement? Which party ran both houses of our Congress - when CAFTA was passed into law, and held open voting in the House for an hour and a half beyond the normal allotted time, in order to get the measure passed 217 to 215?
Not to say that the Democrats didn't do their part, but your knowledge of history - with respect to free trade at least - seems a bit deficient.
What s/he wrote was:
Notice that the person is referring to unlimited accounts, and that "unlimited means unlimited" in the context of how much bandwidth one can consume having subscribed to such an account. The logical conclusion, then, is that right being referred to is the right to get what you were sold and paid for, without secret limitations.
Schmuck.
Yeah, but don't feel bad about it. It's even happened to me before.
Excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide, released as the result of burning fossil fuels extracted after lying sequestered under the ground for millions of years, is a pollutant, you insensitive clod.
Again, I think you misunderstand the objection. I personally have no problem with firearms - I love them, collect them, and know quite well how to use them. The objection is to the danger of stupid, frightened people with full auto firearms.
At a shooting range, I have to content with the asshole next to me who the range officer has to tell multiple times to only point the weapons downrange, or the pud shooting his 9 sideways with the bullets hitting everything but the target and his brass going over the divider into my lane, or the guy who actually bought a .50 Desert Eagle and thinks he's hot shit. I don't want any of these people standing next to me in a controlled fire situation, let alone a free form firefight where everyone's got full auto rifles.
Ok, but there's still multiple jurisdictions across the world to contend with. And then there's the issue of who's got keys to the locker.
This isn't a problem with guns, it's a problem with the practicalities.
I don't think the argument was about the relative combat skills of the involved parties, so much, as the risk posed by handing military weapons to untrained people who may be traveling through troubled waters. Say the guy with the rifle starts shooting at a nearby boat and it's fishermen, rather than pirates - something that could easily happen if visibility isn't the best and/or the guy is spooked. Or say pirates are onboard and you're trying to repel them, and he decides to shoot at you rather than the pirates because he isn't trained to deal with combat situations and just starts shooting.
And that's to say nothing of the issues of weapon possession and use when you're in territorial waters of another country. There's many ports of call where a ship would be liable to search and probable prosecution of the crew for having military-type weapons on board, including here in the US.
Judging by recent news, we apparently also have a history of torturing people we capture.
I think the poster's point was that the sailors using the weapons weren't actually trained military folk, but your basic sailors on merchant and shipping vessels.
The pirate repellent foam is lube. They're going to spray attacking pirates with lube.
None of what you write is surprising, unexpected, or particularly different from my own experience.
But that's why I said that people here at Slashdot need to do some work. When they say "C'mon, they CANNOT outlaw THAT," you have to be ready to say "They can, they have, and here's an article that shows that and the effects it had."
Yeah, so it turns out that absent any major concern on the part of the electorate, politicians listen to the people who talk to them the loudest - folks with money to lobby them. And while this site is chock full of people who like to write righteous screeds about the injustices of copyright law, most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
Let me repeat that: most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
They don't know, don't pay attention, haven't had it be a problem for them, and don't care. Go and ask your parents, or your non-tech savvy siblings, or whomever else. Most, if not all of them, won't know or care. And the reason for that is because nearly all the people that do care spend their time writing righteous screeds about it on Slashdot.
If you want to make a difference, sure - complain about it, but not here. Complain about it to your congresscritters; but not just them - you've got to make other people give a shit, and that means talking to someone who's not here to listen to the preaching at choir practice.
If normal people start giving a shit, politicians will change their tune, because that's how politics works. So get the fuck off Slashdot and go talk to regular people who don't know and don't care, and inform them and get them to give a shit. It does matter, and you can convince people that it matters. But you have to actually do some work.
Or saboteurs?
Until we know who did it and why, it's not reasonable to consider them activists, terrorists, or anything really but criminals and/or saboteurs. They did trespass and destroy property, so that's a crime, and apparently did so with the intention of disrupting communications systems, which would be sabotage.
Yeah, but so what? There's a perfectly serviceable to DB2 in most common programming languages - C/C++, Java, Python, Perl, Perl. Hell, on *nix you can use the db2cli client and interface with the database using shell scripting tools. Mostly this is for people running tools that only use MySQL, and it's only to replace them with DB2 eventually - I've worked on at least one such project (a disaster, though through no fault of DB2 or the cadres of IBM Global Services consultants that I dealt with).
This statement:
Perhaps you didn't mean to compare DB2 to MySQL, but saying MySQL would serve the same place in the product lineup is deeply silly, at best.
If ever a story deserved that tag, this is it.