I am taking computer science in university right now.
We do eventually take courses to learn a little C++, but I do not think we are ever taught any C.
C is historic, and not something I think anyone should want to ever use (why use an abacus when you have a calculator).
If they are teaching you C++, they'd better teach C, or you're not going to be able to write a program that will do anything.
I'm no astrophysicist but shouldn't a galactic anchor supermassive black hole tearing ass through it's soon-to-be former host galaxy be dragging a fair amount of material with it and creating a bow shock, much as this runaway star is doing?
Me, either. But... maybe that's how they know it's leaving at "high speed" - the faster it goes (beyond a certain point) the less material it would be dragging behind it, as the gravity waves are passing by too fast to overcome the existing inertia of the nearby material.
Wish I had some mod points for you. Very insightful. People should point this out more, but I don't think the big telcos or government regulators want people to be thinking about it that way.
I really don't like comments like this as they are completely unproductive. Why, Fred over there got robbed for all the good the laws and cops did! Guess we shouldn't have any laws or cops at all, giving the folks a false sense of security that they can leave their homes without being armed to the teeth.
*sigh* The idea is not to abolish something when it fails, the idea is to see where something failed and improve upon it.
Funny how some people's view of any failed government program is not that it should be abolished or changed, but just that there should be more of it.
There is nothing socialist about this current administration. Universal healthcare is NOT socialism. Placing government controls over infrastructure is not socialism.
No, of course not. The progress being made isn't toward any type of socialism - it's toward monarchy. The march toward greater and greater control by the executive has been relentless for many years, and has accelerated significantly under Bush and even more under Obama - the consummate Monarchist.
Check out the latest SCOTUS nominee. What makes her Obama's best pick? Socialist? NO, not at all. Liberal, even? Meh - on a few issues, but not really. She even supports indefinite detention for "terror" suspects. But... she is a big Obama supporter specifically and a defender of executive power of all kinds generally.
Why? Because it was built using taxpayer money and with the expectation that it would be a neutral and uncensored... waitaminute
Your subtle message will be lost on the those that most need to hear it, like pearls before swine.
They've made their mind up that the American government is just a horrible thing and nothing's going to change their mind, except maturity.
Not a "horrible thing" - a "necessary evil". One that has broken it's Constitutional leash and needs to be brought back under the constraints in law that the People put it in when they gave it some of their authority.
we're pretty sensitive when it comes to the idea of "freedom". Hell, we (somewhat falsely)[1] used it as an argument to form an independent nation in the first place.
So you're saying that declaring Independence was a mistake? It was the wrong thing to do? Too radical? We should have stayed under Britain's rule?
I haven't read "The Radicalism of the American Revolution". Is it an indictment of the founding of the US as an evil empire?
Actually no, most "child protection" laws are civil laws.
Of course. That's because the state considers your children their property. You are expected to care for them properly and not abuse them, send them to the indoctrination centers every day, and you will be paid a token stipend (in the form of a "deduction") at the end of the year.
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
Since we don't know the ideology of the SCOTUS nominee, we have to assume that she is closely aligned with that of the President. With that assumption made, it should be pretty easy to answer your questions. I'll provide them below just as I predict Kagan will.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
Yes, absolutely. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate... anything. Just look at all the precedent we have for massive expansion of power under Interstate Commerce. These agencies are allowed to regulate "trade" and "communications". Without limit.
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
Your community is where you live, of course. And as long as your community leaders recognize the supremacy of Federal law, they will be able to require whatever filtering and banning of Internet content that they deem necessary. Based on their community standards, of course.
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
No, I'm sorry, that's all based on private contracts and copyright. Congress can extend copyright to forever -1 day if they want. That's what the Constitution allows. Look at all the precedent!
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
Well no, of course not. That's just the Federal government working to protect you, along with cooperative international agreements and global consensus. That "privacy right" that precedent created is only for ensuring your right to sexual proclivities and abortions and stuff. It doesn't mean you get to keep information private from the Federal government, because that would be an undue burden on its ability to govern. You see that, don't you?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Well pretty much everything you post is flamebait (certainly everything in this article), so you're really just the pot calling the kettle black, here.
I've always been curious about this. The patent is obviously required for the creation of the encoding and decoding software. But how can distribution of an already encoded video be in violation of the patent? It doesn't implement the patent, only the results of using the patent. This really needs to be something that the legal basis of needs to be challenged.
Well that's the way patent law works. You have a license to do "A", but not "B". If you want to use our property to do "B", you need new permission to do that.
2) You might even want to use a flouride mouthwash. I use Act Restoring (stupid name, but the one I use is the one that is alcohol-based; the other Act has no alcohol). I figure killing germs in my mouth is always good, and the flouride can't hurt.
I suggest you switch to a non-alcohol based mouthwash, especially if you are concerned about bad breath. Alcohol is a desiccant - a drying agent - and while it will initially kill germs, the drying will soon make bad breath much worse, and defeat the germ-killing abilities of your saliva, which will actually give bacteria a better chance of re-establishing itself in your mouth. Using alcohol to clean your mouth is very bad for you gums, and can actually lead to an increased risk of tooth decay.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).
Oh now that is bullshit.
the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.
You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.
Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken. Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress. Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to? Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.
Is the US really a superpower still? It's definitely declining. Looking at history I think it's delusional arrogance to believe the US has found the "perfect" government. Especially when you consider the US being such a young construct, which definitely has yet to stand the test of time.
Well, the US does have the longest standing Constitution of any nation. I think that says a whole lot about the effectiveness of our chosen form of government.
How long did it stand?
The clock is still running, some 200+ years at this point. More than can be said for a lot of other younger countries that have come and gone in that time.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).
issue a legal opinion on civil rights which did not take into account the 14th fucking Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Because that wasn't the question. The question had to do with providing certain specific, special classes of people with extra protection, not whether everyone's civil rights should be protected equally, which is all the 14th amendment guarantees.
The Virginia Human Rights Act protects race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability. They wanted to add another category. Sorry, but that's the job of the General Assembly, the law already covers (explicitly) educational institutions.
You can complain about whether that's sufficient or not, or that the General Assembly should have included sexual orientation (they voted 3 times not to), but the legal opinion was correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Think that the title was "'Cyber-Roach' Forces Rethink On Animal Rights Movement"?
No, of course not. Just you.
I am taking computer science in university right now. We do eventually take courses to learn a little C++, but I do not think we are ever taught any C. C is historic, and not something I think anyone should want to ever use (why use an abacus when you have a calculator).
If they are teaching you C++, they'd better teach C, or you're not going to be able to write a program that will do anything.
I'm no astrophysicist but shouldn't a galactic anchor supermassive black hole tearing ass through it's soon-to-be former host galaxy be dragging a fair amount of material with it and creating a bow shock, much as this runaway star is doing?
Me, either. But... maybe that's how they know it's leaving at "high speed" - the faster it goes (beyond a certain point) the less material it would be dragging behind it, as the gravity waves are passing by too fast to overcome the existing inertia of the nearby material.
Oh, well I guess you missed the larger version of the image.
Check it out. It's obvious there that it's hauling ass away from the center. I mean, look at all the little stars scrambling to get out of its way!
Not really surprising. It IS ThinkProgress after all.
I vote for them as "Most ironically named website of all time."
Are they trying to compete with InfoWars.com for some sort of "fringiest news site" award?
Wish I had some mod points for you. Very insightful. People should point this out more, but I don't think the big telcos or government regulators want people to be thinking about it that way.
hahahahahahahaha
Ignorance of history is no laughing matter.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. - George Orwell
War is an overseas contingency plan. Freedom is a marketing gimmick for astroturfers. Ignorance is the result of too much distracting information.
FTFY.
I really don't like comments like this as they are completely unproductive. Why, Fred over there got robbed for all the good the laws and cops did! Guess we shouldn't have any laws or cops at all, giving the folks a false sense of security that they can leave their homes without being armed to the teeth. *sigh* The idea is not to abolish something when it fails, the idea is to see where something failed and improve upon it.
Funny how some people's view of any failed government program is not that it should be abolished or changed, but just that there should be more of it.
Bullshit. Regulations are for preventing Big Fucking Rich Co. from ass raping Joe Public.
No shit. That's the government's job. And they hate competition.
Honestly the right solution is even more radical, (Australia just started it, look it up)
Yea, that's radical, but it's far from the "right" solution. I don't want secret, national-level Internet filters blocking my access.
There is nothing socialist about this current administration. Universal healthcare is NOT socialism. Placing government controls over infrastructure is not socialism.
No, of course not. The progress being made isn't toward any type of socialism - it's toward monarchy. The march toward greater and greater control by the executive has been relentless for many years, and has accelerated significantly under Bush and even more under Obama - the consummate Monarchist.
Check out the latest SCOTUS nominee. What makes her Obama's best pick? Socialist? NO, not at all. Liberal, even? Meh - on a few issues, but not really. She even supports indefinite detention for "terror" suspects. But... she is a big Obama supporter specifically and a defender of executive power of all kinds generally.
Monarchy.
Yeah how about that, it's almost as if the Network of roadways has some sort of legal Neutrality...
Sure. As long as your papers are in order, you are properly tagged every where you go, and they can identify you easily with the traffic cameras.
And that's how they plan to fix the Internet.
Your subtle message will be lost on the those that most need to hear it, like pearls before swine.
They've made their mind up that the American government is just a horrible thing and nothing's going to change their mind, except maturity.
Not a "horrible thing" - a "necessary evil". One that has broken it's Constitutional leash and needs to be brought back under the constraints in law that the People put it in when they gave it some of their authority.
we're pretty sensitive when it comes to the idea of "freedom". Hell, we (somewhat falsely)[1] used it as an argument to form an independent nation in the first place.
So you're saying that declaring Independence was a mistake? It was the wrong thing to do? Too radical? We should have stayed under Britain's rule?
I haven't read "The Radicalism of the American Revolution". Is it an indictment of the founding of the US as an evil empire?
It's not just those companies at fault. It's also, once again, failure on the part of the federal government to even follow their own plans.
Actually no, most "child protection" laws are civil laws.
Of course. That's because the state considers your children their property. You are expected to care for them properly and not abuse them, send them to the indoctrination centers every day, and you will be paid a token stipend (in the form of a "deduction") at the end of the year.
Because one person's "frittering" is another person's life-long gratifying, technology advancing, society improving, human race evolving career.
Well said!
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
Since we don't know the ideology of the SCOTUS nominee, we have to assume that she is closely aligned with that of the President. With that assumption made, it should be pretty easy to answer your questions. I'll provide them below just as I predict Kagan will.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
Yes, absolutely. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate ... anything. Just look at all the precedent we have for massive expansion of power under Interstate Commerce. These agencies are allowed to regulate "trade" and "communications". Without limit.
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
Your community is where you live, of course. And as long as your community leaders recognize the supremacy of Federal law, they will be able to require whatever filtering and banning of Internet content that they deem necessary. Based on their community standards, of course.
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
No, I'm sorry, that's all based on private contracts and copyright. Congress can extend copyright to forever -1 day if they want. That's what the Constitution allows. Look at all the precedent!
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
Well no, of course not. That's just the Federal government working to protect you, along with cooperative international agreements and global consensus. That "privacy right" that precedent created is only for ensuring your right to sexual proclivities and abortions and stuff. It doesn't mean you get to keep information private from the Federal government, because that would be an undue burden on its ability to govern. You see that, don't you?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Yep.
Well pretty much everything you post is flamebait (certainly everything in this article), so you're really just the pot calling the kettle black, here.
I've always been curious about this. The patent is obviously required for the creation of the encoding and decoding software. But how can distribution of an already encoded video be in violation of the patent? It doesn't implement the patent, only the results of using the patent. This really needs to be something that the legal basis of needs to be challenged.
Well that's the way patent law works. You have a license to do "A", but not "B". If you want to use our property to do "B", you need new permission to do that.
2) You might even want to use a flouride mouthwash. I use Act Restoring (stupid name, but the one I use is the one that is alcohol-based; the other Act has no alcohol). I figure killing germs in my mouth is always good, and the flouride can't hurt.
I suggest you switch to a non-alcohol based mouthwash, especially if you are concerned about bad breath. Alcohol is a desiccant - a drying agent - and while it will initially kill germs, the drying will soon make bad breath much worse, and defeat the germ-killing abilities of your saliva, which will actually give bacteria a better chance of re-establishing itself in your mouth. Using alcohol to clean your mouth is very bad for you gums, and can actually lead to an increased risk of tooth decay.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).
Oh now that is bullshit.
the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.
You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.
Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules
Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.
Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.
Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?
Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.
Then there are the Constitution-free zones
Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.
How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't
Is the US really a superpower still? It's definitely declining. Looking at history I think it's delusional arrogance to believe the US has found the "perfect" government. Especially when you consider the US being such a young construct, which definitely has yet to stand the test of time.
Well, the US does have the longest standing Constitution of any nation. I think that says a whole lot about the effectiveness of our chosen form of government.
How long did it stand?
The clock is still running, some 200+ years at this point. More than can be said for a lot of other younger countries that have come and gone in that time.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).
issue a legal opinion on civil rights which did not take into account the 14th fucking Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Because that wasn't the question. The question had to do with providing certain specific, special classes of people with extra protection, not whether everyone's civil rights should be protected equally, which is all the 14th amendment guarantees.
The Virginia Human Rights Act protects race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability. They wanted to add another category. Sorry, but that's the job of the General Assembly, the law already covers (explicitly) educational institutions.
You can complain about whether that's sufficient or not, or that the General Assembly should have included sexual orientation (they voted 3 times not to), but the legal opinion was correct.