Picture a city where all crimes have to have someone step forth and accuse. There is no police force in this city, and no penalty for a citizen who makes a false claim. Now, picture that the state police wants to go in, but they'll be subject to the laws of this city--and they're going after a gang boss smart enough to abuse the system.
So instead, they're going to go in anyway, but only if they can do as they please. Sorry, it doesn't work for me. Justice - of any kind - only works if it's above board, and that means public. (cf. "we have evidence that xyz is linked to terror, but we can't tell anyone until AFTER we've bombed them to rubble, trust us." is an example of how not to do it.)
Take our friend Slobodan Milosevic at the moment, currently on trial in The Hague for genocide, amongst other things. Yes, he's doing a lot of the finger pointing you mention ("the only civilian casualties were caused by NATO bombing" etc.). Yes, he's a dead smart boss who knows how to play the propaganda game. But he's not getting very far with it.
I don't care if it's accurate--this is how I believe my government views the problems with the world crimes court. It's not an argument that "we should be immune from justice." It's an argument that "this court will be abused, and is not justice."
The helpful attitude would be to help the system not to be abused (or come up with a credible alternative - and no, "because we say so" unilateralism doesn't count). You can't play and be the referee at the same time, but that's what the US seems to want to do. At least that's the impression they give.
No one says the ICC is/will be perfect, but the argument in its favour is that any kind of "due process" - particularly one that makes as much information as possible public - is better than none at all.
The argument isn't USA wanting to be immune to legitimate claims--it's a desire to avoid all spurious ones.
That rings a little hollow though...kind of sounds like arguing the only way to avoid miscarriages of justice is not to have any justice in the first place.
As it is, the US is frequently engaged in military action all over the world, and frequently legitimises these actions by claiming to be protecting human rights, preventing war crimes, chasing terrorists, etc. Of course, many people would argue these claims are a poor smokescreen anyway, but the US's argument is hardly made more believable by claiming that they (alone in the world) should be exempt from the justice that they (claim to) mete out on other people. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, and all that.
I always thought the canonical example of a US citizen that might be tried was Henry Kissinger, on a long list of war crimes allegations (try googling for "kissinger" and "cambodia").
Hmm what's wrong with Danish, I happen to be Danish and find your remark "and if the Danes could do it, then it can't be that hard" a bit on the offending side
If the Danes in question that maintained the blacklist could do it without resorting to any more sophisticated hacking tricks, happy now?
I'm sure that you as a Us person don't even know the location of Denmark?
Don't insult me. Denmark is the bit that's north of germany (jutland) and a couple of islands in the kattegat (or is it skaggerak? i can never remember which is which). And I'm sitting a mere 600km to the SW of denmark, which is a long way from the US.
This guy's gripe is about being misidentified as an open relay. But either I'm missing something or he's full of crap:
How had it gained access to my mail server? Simple. It had forged the headers on its email to convince my mail server that the email it sent was from a permitted user.
One word: Authentification.
You see, my mail servers were set up to pass mail only from a domain name of which I am the only user. It blocks everything else. That's not an open relay. Unless you're a user in my domain, you can't use it.
Uh, it may not be a totally open relay in the literal sense of the word, but surely that still means it can be used to send spam, as long as the spammer figures out who to identify himself as - and if the Danes could do it, then it can't be that hard?
Any spam-block that relies entirely on the "from:" header is broken by design. What, spammers disguise their identities? Never!
Why? Because we're LAZY. And because when we're reading Slashdot, we're not in our most intellectually aware (or porn-browsing paranoid) mood.
Hmmm...when I'm reading Slashdot, I'm aware that most links will be to external sites, so I pay more attention to where they go... (as opposed to most sites where the majority of links are internal, so I don't pay as much attention)...YMMV I guess.
Almost flawlessly the "Free Registration required: blah blah blah" warning has been there, so at least I got used to the idea that if something similar wasn't there, I could click away.
I see your point. It's something you get used to, like the fact that unfailingly someone will post the entire article in the comments. At least that still happens.;-)
I know the "NY-Times Free Registration" horse is dead, but it would be nice to warn users that it's a NY Times link, even if it is the usual "Note: Free Registration, blah blah blah, stop pestering us we have more important duties here at Slashdot than editing content...". Or maybe even just a link[nytimes.com] notation.
Just so we don't bother.
See the bit at the bottom of the browser window? See how when your pointer moves over a link, the URL gets displayed down there? All together now: "aaaahh!"
(Then again, I clicked on it because even though I saw the "nytimes" bit, I didn't immediately remember that I'd get a "please register" screen... nobody's perfect I guess:-) )
This is really interesting, especially this section:
Thus, an infringer may claim that plaintiff's delay in bringing suit caused the infringer to believe that plaintiff would not object to defendant's infringing conduct. Based on this belief, defendant continued the infringing activity, thereby substantially increasing potentially recoverable damages. This would constitute material prejudice in the form of economic harm.
This would seem to apply to most "submarine" type patents, such as hyperlinks, DDR etc., maybe even GIF if you get a sympathetic judge (although probably not). So how come I've never heard this mentioned before?
(perhaps I should stop hiding under that rock...)
Re:yes, feed us crap, we want it
on
0wnz0red
·
· Score: 1
What site do you think you're reading?:)
Ah, the old catch-all argument.:)
This isn't PrepNews, or GothNet. It's Slashdot, for nerds (read:geeks). It has a demographic [...]
Not really my point. Anything that is worth reading doesn't need to be "targeted at a demographic". Using a demographic as an input filter (the *reader* (in this case, editor) exercising judgment) is not the same as chasing the demographic in order to pimp your content (the *author* trying to pre-empt the reader's judgment). Consider these cases:
1. this story is about xyz, because its author likes xyz. our readers like xyz. they may find it interesting.
2. this story has had lots of xyz references put into it, because the author knows that we like xyz and thinks we will read anything that refers to xyz.
See the difference? Think advertising. "We use this imagery not because we like it, but because we think you like it and we want your attention...and your money...."
1) stop reading/.
Done that, but I miss the trolling too much. Maybe it's my twisted sense of humour.
2) Start using the story filters to take out categories you feel affect the SNR on here for you.
I'm vain enough to thing that the question of what interests me or not is a little more complex than ticking checkboxes...if a story is funny/interesting, it doesn't matter what topic it's on. Hell, I've had more interesting conversations about women's fashion than some of the "techie" items that get re-tread in the same way over and over again.:)
I guess this is why I don't get people who refer to themselves as a "nerd" (or "geek", or whatever), as if a 4-letter word could summarise your personality. (If it does, you need help! and a life) I hate people pigeonholing me - why should I do it to myself?
yes, feed us crap, we want it
on
0wnz0red
·
· Score: 0, Troll
it feels like it's aimed squarely at the geeks' demographic.
Does this actually sound like a recommendation to anyone at all, or just faintly patronising and insulting?
The story just reads like the bastard offspring of "ph34r me, I don't understand codepages" megatokyo and "1337 h4x0r" jeffK. Since when do 10-year-olds write for wired? Oops, sorry, they always have...
Anyone notice that as the signal to noise ratio of story titles continues to go down that the small GIF next to each story becomes more informative as to what a story is about than the title? Maybe Slashdot should use strictly the subject graphics as the title of items.
What, you mean you READ the title? I thought you were just supposed to send the flame appropriate to the picture! Next you'll be telling me you're actually meant to read the stories as well!
Well I am behind a win2k NAT box at home so that could have something to do with it.
May well be. I know that e.g. Junkbuster breaks pipelining because it doesn't properly support HTTP/1.1. Might want to google and see if it's a known issue.
But my ISP is not one of those lame AOLesuqe monstroities. I doubt they would insert lame configurations. They officially support linux and when you dial them for help, a competent tech (sometimes the owner) answers.
They might simply not know. No other browser (AFAIK) supports pipelining, so any issues related to it might not have turned up yet...there may be unknown bugs in lots of NAT/proxy/firewall software.
Interesting... at home on my blazing slow 28.8* I have found that it is neither faster or slow than non-pipelined browsing when using multiple pages at once. Are you using a broadband connection?
Maybe you're behind a (transparent?) proxy that doesn't support it? It should fail gracefully, so without some digging you may never know whether what you get is actually pipelined.
I keep hearing about "safety concerns" in connection with hydrogen fuel cells, which is fair enough. But is there any real test data available? Have these fuel-cell designs been subjected to the the same kind of destructive testing (drive into a concrete wall at 50kph etc) as normal cars, or are these 'concept cars' too precious to ram into a wall just to see if they do blow up?
On the contrary, the punishment is not purely for punishment's sake. That would be childish (like getting your own back) and even sadistic. Some (very few) offenders are locked up for violent crimes to prevent them from doing so again, but most punishments are meant to act as a deterrent.
Maybe so in civilised <g> countries, but I'm sure I recall a poll of (US-)americans in which a majority said they thought the primary purpose of the justice system was (or should be) "retribution". Sad.
We should all use Hurd instead of Linux. Linux numbers disk partitions from 1 (/dev/hda1,/dev/hda2,...), while GRUB, the Hurd bootloader, numbers partitions from 0. As any self-respecting computer scientist knows, it is more proper to index things beginning with 0. Therefore, Hurd is a superior operating system, and we should all immediately switch to Hurd.
Fool. Everyone knows REAL PROGRAMMERS write in FORTRAN, which indexes arrays starting with 1. (unless explicitly specified otherwise). That is why GNU/REAL PROGRAMMERS will run their punch-card programs on the GNU/HURD.
Its called the GNU/GNU Hurd, because its part of the GNU/System
Well, since GNU is already recursive, obviously it should be used recursively as well. You should probably add a "GNU/" for each compile since it was compiled with gcc. So by now it's (\Pi_0^{\infty} GNU/)Hurd, that's GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/[...]/GNU/Hurd...
Of course, you can probably run a (or any number of) virtual hurd(s) on a hurd system, so it would be GNU/GNU/[...]/GNU/GNU/Hurd/Hurd/[...]/Hurd/Hurd.
Oh, and microkernels seem to be out of fashion again...but who really cares about technical details when we can poke fun at RMS instead!
Slashdot Mirror
seems to mean that if you're reading page 1 of a multi-page article, page 2 will be loaded in the background. nice!
So instead, they're going to go in anyway, but only if they can do as they please. Sorry, it doesn't work for me. Justice - of any kind - only works if it's above board, and that means public. (cf. "we have evidence that xyz is linked to terror, but we can't tell anyone until AFTER we've bombed them to rubble, trust us." is an example of how not to do it.)
Take our friend Slobodan Milosevic at the moment, currently on trial in The Hague for genocide, amongst other things. Yes, he's doing a lot of the finger pointing you mention ("the only civilian casualties were caused by NATO bombing" etc.). Yes, he's a dead smart boss who knows how to play the propaganda game. But he's not getting very far with it.
I don't care if it's accurate--this is how I believe my government views the problems with the world crimes court. It's not an argument that "we should be immune from justice." It's an argument that "this court will be abused, and is not justice."
The helpful attitude would be to help the system not to be abused (or come up with a credible alternative - and no, "because we say so" unilateralism doesn't count). You can't play and be the referee at the same time, but that's what the US seems to want to do. At least that's the impression they give.
No one says the ICC is/will be perfect, but the argument in its favour is that any kind of "due process" - particularly one that makes as much information as possible public - is better than none at all.
That rings a little hollow though...kind of sounds like arguing the only way to avoid miscarriages of justice is not to have any justice in the first place.
As it is, the US is frequently engaged in military action all over the world, and frequently legitimises these actions by claiming to be protecting human rights, preventing war crimes, chasing terrorists, etc. Of course, many people would argue these claims are a poor smokescreen anyway, but the US's argument is hardly made more believable by claiming that they (alone in the world) should be exempt from the justice that they (claim to) mete out on other people. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, and all that.
I always thought the canonical example of a US citizen that might be tried was Henry Kissinger, on a long list of war crimes allegations (try googling for "kissinger" and "cambodia").
If the Danes in question that maintained the blacklist could do it without resorting to any more sophisticated hacking tricks, happy now?
I'm sure that you as a Us person don't even know the location of Denmark?
Don't insult me. Denmark is the bit that's north of germany (jutland) and a couple of islands in the kattegat (or is it skaggerak? i can never remember which is which). And I'm sitting a mere 600km to the SW of denmark, which is a long way from the US.
oops... :-)
How had it gained access to my mail server? Simple. It had forged the headers on its email to convince my mail server that the email it sent was from a permitted user.
One word: Authentification.
You see, my mail servers were set up to pass mail only from a domain name of which I am the only user. It blocks everything else. That's not an open relay. Unless you're a user in my domain, you can't use it.
Uh, it may not be a totally open relay in the literal sense of the word, but surely that still means it can be used to send spam, as long as the spammer figures out who to identify himself as - and if the Danes could do it, then it can't be that hard?
Any spam-block that relies entirely on the "from:" header is broken by design. What, spammers disguise their identities? Never!
Hmmm...when I'm reading Slashdot, I'm aware that most links will be to external sites, so I pay more attention to where they go... (as opposed to most sites where the majority of links are internal, so I don't pay as much attention)...YMMV I guess.
Almost flawlessly the "Free Registration required: blah blah blah" warning has been there, so at least I got used to the idea that if something similar wasn't there, I could click away.
I see your point. It's something you get used to, like the fact that unfailingly someone will post the entire article in the comments. At least that still happens. ;-)
Just so we don't bother.
See the bit at the bottom of the browser window? See how when your pointer moves over a link, the URL gets displayed down there? All together now: "aaaahh!"
(Then again, I clicked on it because even though I saw the "nytimes" bit, I didn't immediately remember that I'd get a "please register" screen... nobody's perfect I guess :-) )
Don't you mean "Bernstein"? Casting first stones and all that.
(sings) I say e-ther, you say, i-ther, I say, nee-ther, you say nye-ther.....
Thus, an infringer may claim that plaintiff's delay in bringing suit caused the infringer to believe that plaintiff would not object to defendant's infringing conduct. Based on this belief, defendant continued the infringing activity, thereby substantially increasing potentially recoverable damages. This would constitute material prejudice in the form of economic harm.
This would seem to apply to most "submarine" type patents, such as hyperlinks, DDR etc., maybe even GIF if you get a sympathetic judge (although probably not). So how come I've never heard this mentioned before?
(perhaps I should stop hiding under that rock...)
Ah, the old catch-all argument. :)
This isn't PrepNews, or GothNet. It's Slashdot, for nerds (read:geeks). It has a demographic [...]
Not really my point. Anything that is worth reading doesn't need to be "targeted at a demographic". Using a demographic as an input filter (the *reader* (in this case, editor) exercising judgment) is not the same as chasing the demographic in order to pimp your content (the *author* trying to pre-empt the reader's judgment). Consider these cases:
1. this story is about xyz, because its author likes xyz. our readers like xyz. they may find it interesting.
2. this story has had lots of xyz references put into it, because the author knows that we like xyz and thinks we will read anything that refers to xyz.
See the difference? Think advertising. "We use this imagery not because we like it, but because we think you like it and we want your attention...and your money...."
1) stop reading /.
Done that, but I miss the trolling too much. Maybe it's my twisted sense of humour.
2) Start using the story filters to take out categories you feel affect the SNR on here for you.
I'm vain enough to thing that the question of what interests me or not is a little more complex than ticking checkboxes...if a story is funny/interesting, it doesn't matter what topic it's on. Hell, I've had more interesting conversations about women's fashion than some of the "techie" items that get re-tread in the same way over and over again. :)
I guess this is why I don't get people who refer to themselves as a "nerd" (or "geek", or whatever), as if a 4-letter word could summarise your personality. (If it does, you need help! and a life) I hate people pigeonholing me - why should I do it to myself?
Does this actually sound like a recommendation to anyone at all, or just faintly patronising and insulting?
The story just reads like the bastard offspring of "ph34r me, I don't understand codepages" megatokyo and "1337 h4x0r" jeffK. Since when do 10-year-olds write for wired? Oops, sorry, they always have...
or, in the words of the excellent "quit slashdot" page:
So, really, it's time to ask yourself: why should I read Slashdot? Because it targets my demographic? That's a silly reason.
I always thought the first (booster) stage fell into the ocean (doesn't burn up, too low) and got salvaged and reused?
...but it had to be done.
What, you mean you READ the title? I thought you were just supposed to send the flame appropriate to the picture! Next you'll be telling me you're actually meant to read the stories as well!
rc
Hmm, does that mean BillG can't vote in Florida?
> What was the next step.. oh yes newspeak..
We already have newspeak...it just has a texan accent.
"this guy is a bad guy"
"we're going to track down those folks that did this"
"they may have misunderestimated me"
May well be. I know that e.g. Junkbuster breaks pipelining because it doesn't properly support HTTP/1.1. Might want to google and see if it's a known issue.
But my ISP is not one of those lame AOLesuqe monstroities. I doubt they would insert lame configurations. They officially support linux and when you dial them for help, a competent tech (sometimes the owner) answers.
They might simply not know. No other browser (AFAIK) supports pipelining, so any issues related to it might not have turned up yet...there may be unknown bugs in lots of NAT/proxy/firewall software.
Maybe you're behind a (transparent?) proxy that doesn't support it? It should fail gracefully, so without some digging you may never know whether what you get is actually pipelined.
I keep hearing about "safety concerns" in connection with hydrogen fuel cells, which is fair enough. But is there any real test data available? Have these fuel-cell designs been subjected to the the same kind of destructive testing (drive into a concrete wall at 50kph etc) as normal cars, or are these 'concept cars' too precious to ram into a wall just to see if they do blow up?
Maybe so in civilised <g> countries, but I'm sure I recall a poll of (US-)americans in which a majority said they thought the primary purpose of the justice system was (or should be) "retribution". Sad.
Fool. Everyone knows REAL PROGRAMMERS write in FORTRAN, which indexes arrays starting with 1. (unless explicitly specified otherwise). That is why GNU/REAL PROGRAMMERS will run their punch-card programs on the GNU/HURD.
Well, since GNU is already recursive, obviously it should be used recursively as well. You should probably add a "GNU/" for each compile since it was compiled with gcc. So by now it's (\Pi_0^{\infty} GNU/)Hurd, that's GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/[...]/GNU/Hurd...
Of course, you can probably run a (or any number of) virtual hurd(s) on a hurd system, so it would be GNU/GNU/[...]/GNU/GNU/Hurd/Hurd/[...]/Hurd/Hurd.
Oh, and microkernels seem to be out of fashion again...but who really cares about technical details when we can poke fun at RMS instead!
No, I think the next step will be free printers and ink cartridges, but a large Doubleclick ad is printed in the middle of each document.
Yeah, but that makes punching the monkey too easy...I want my $20!