So - you're more interested in liability, than education?
How much education will a school that has been shut down because it has been sued into bankruptcy do? How many teachers will be lost when just one liability suit is lost for a couple million dollars? You can't teach anyone if you can't hire teachers.
Oh yeah - it IS the schools responsibility to TEACH the kids how to experiment safely.
Now say something I disagree with. Having a student ask an authority figure at a school if it is safe to mix X and Y and then that student running off and doing it on their own is NOT teaching them to experiment safely, it's accepting responsibility for the inevitable failures the student experiences, without having anyone who knows better on hand to stop them.
Canada's 2011 population was 34.5 million people. The USA: 314 million. Canada is larger than the US?
We're talking about getting PEOPLE to use a system, not how much vast empty space there is to measure in square meters instead of square feet. "America" (The US) is nine times the size of Canada in population.
You seem to be making the tired old argument that morality comes from religion.
I said nothing of the sort. I said, pretty clearly, that religions include ethical and moral standards, and that some people confuse the religion and the ethics. If a religion believes in certain ethical standards, then imposing those ethical standards upon others is an unacceptable intrusion of the religion. It doesn't matter where the origin of the ethics came from, if a religious person suggests they be followed it is religion.
"Thou shall not kill" was the example. Did you seriously think that I said that the only place you find that ethical standard was in Christianity?
I see religion--specifically American Christian religions--imposing an interpretation of an old book of fairy tales on me and my countrymen.
Since they aren't forcing anyone to believe any religious doctrines, you are wrong. I'm sorry that you think ethical standards come only from religion -- pecifically American Christian religions -- but they do not. The day the law says you must go to a certain church or believe pre-millenial doctrines, you'd have a point.
However, we have had laws in the past based on Christianity. Blue laws, sodomy laws, adultery laws.
You think that you have to be a Christian to think that adultery is wrong? Or that any of the other things are? Oh, boy, you better never go to a country with Sharia law. I'd counter and say that you have to be atheist and/or hedonist to believe that those things are moral -- so here's an example of an implicit religion making laws. Bad for one, bad for both, right?
"Honey, we probably should have stressed that you don't mix chemicals until you're sure what to expect from them!
That statement is the school taking responsibility for unauthorized and unexpected experiments undertaken by any student. It wasn't the school's fault that they didn't tell her explicitly not to mix random things together to see what happens.
Next time, ask BEFORE you mix the stuff up!"
And that statement would be the school accepting responsibility for whatever experiments the student comes up with. "Hey, you told my child it was ok to mix X and Y and now she's lost a finger or two and the house has serious damage... I'm suing...".
Bullshit. Most religious people simply cannot grasp the concept that their religion should not permeate all things.
Citation required. "Most"? Hardly. Some? Maybe. But you're now conflating conservative/right with religious/zealot, and by doing so you show a strong bias. I could also point out that some atheists believe that their religion should permeate all things. And that some muslims ditto. So, like I said, freedom FROM religion requires acknowledgement of things that are religious in nature but that call themselves something else.
And, as I said, you've confused a belief that ethics and morals are important with religion. You've seen that the religions you hate promote ethical standards and thus those ethical standards are an unfair imposition upon you. "Thou shall not kill" is an unacceptable intrusion of religion into your life; "don't kill me" is fine, even though the natural flipside to your desire not to be killed is a prohibition in general on killing others. "Turn the other cheek" is a religious saying, unacceptable. "Imagine world peace" is a new age warm-fuzzy saying; it's great!
They would impose their religion on everyone even if there wasn't some ridiculous argument about evolution...
You're the one using the word evolution. I stayed away from it deliberately, because so often the term "evolution" gets converted into "origin of life" and used interchangeably -- as you just did.
which has nothing to do with the origin of life by the way.
Then why did you bring it up when I said "origin of life"?
I support the right to bear arms, as well as the right for a woman to have an abortion. I support the Death Penalty (in some circumstances), and I also support assistance for those that need it. I support gay marriage, and I also support the Free Market. I support the freedom OF religion, as well as the freedom FROM religion.
Strange. I don't seem to fit into either category.
No, that's a pretty good representation of the right. What you may have been thinking you said that makes you lefty is something like: "I support the right for a woman to have a taxpayer funded abortion upon demand for any reason". What you actually said is what the left usually tries to claim the right doesn't believe in, so excuse me when I see what you actually said as shorthand for the longer, less conservative position.
You also said "assistance for those who need it", and the main difference between left and right here is the definition of "need". Perhaps also to some extent whether all assistance needs to be through mandated taxes or by voluntary charity.
And absolutely the right supports freedom FROM religion, if you properly include in "religion" all things that are faith-based -- like science that claims to know for a fact the origin of life, and atheism. What the right doesn't support is freedom from morals and ethics, which are often mapped into principles that are also found in some religions and so are often confused as pushing some specific religion. "Thou shall not kill" is a pretty reasonable ethical and moral stand, whether or not it is worded as King James' translators writ.
The only issue that truly is a left/right one is "gay marriage", where the left expects to take over the concept of marriage from those who attach special significance to it and cannot accept the legal equivalence of civil union. I think you would find a fair number of conservatives who have no problem with civil union, and who wonder why civil unions are not sufficient to meet the complaints of legal inequities gay couples experience.
Your point was that it hurts the perception, and you are quite right.
His point was that you can't hurt the perception because all cops are scum and that this global opinion is "valid". He's wrong. It's doing the same kind of thing that the media does to hackers when some script kiddy pulls a lameass stunt that makes the news, and we'd be right to complain that this was an invalid stereotype.
If you want people to try to differentiate between the script kiddy destructive hacker and what we want to think of ourselves as hackers, you really do need to grant other people the same differentiation when one of "them" does something bad.
They are if you take context into consideration: FBI Ass. D.I.C. George V. was implying that police should never be considered suspect;
That's not what he said at all, if the quote was accurate. He said that the police department should be the last place you have to worry about this, as in, police shouldn't be doing this so you shouldn't have to consider them suspect. The IMPLICATION is that they DO it and you DO have to be worried. That's 180 degrees from your interpretation. "Shouldn't have to" is much much much different than "should never".
OK, so this cop did do something, he re-enforced a perfectly valid view point.
Valid? Ok, so stereotyping is good just as long as it is a negative stereotype about someone you don't like. Got it.
Hate to break it to you, but painting all cops with the same brush is as bad as painting all "hackers" with the same brush or all Chinese people or all... Yeah, some cops are douchebags. Not all of them are, despite your valid viewpoint otherwise.
Look, police informants are not whistle blowers. You may think they deserve to be protected,
Look, I know RTFA is not common here on/., but by doing so you make yourself look like an idiot. These people were not "police informants". Here's what the fine article has to say about the people now in danger:
Complaints range from rape cases opened in Durban to police brutality in Port Elizabeth. Also on the list are ordinary South Africans asking for help in cases involving vehicle theft and illegal shebeens.
Oh, my God! These people DARED to report their car stolen to THE POLICE! They deserve no protection, no consideration, no concern, from rich techno-geeks who have enough idle time to read/. Why not just execute them as soon as they finish dialing the phone to make the report? Especially those who are reporting police brutality?
So, if I call the police because my property was stolen and I want a police report filed so insurance will cover it, I'm somehow "helping police"? If I "file a complaint" about the police, I'm somehow helping them? If I call in to report, in confidence, a criminal who is vandalizing the neighborhood, I'm somehow "helping the police" shoot a bunch of miners?
What a fascinating universe you live in, with all the definitions of things upside down and the moon made of green cheese and all.
There is no excuse for putting 16000 people's lives at risk when the worst thing they've done is report some criminal activity to the cops.
On another note, isn't the point of "Anonymous", written into the name and everything, that there is no real structure, that there are no real decision makers beyond everyone individually choosing what they're going to work on,
No. You're confusing the words "anonymous" and "anarchist".
Well none of the people I know even have a gun so I'm pretty safe there.
I bet you're wrong. I was surprised to find out who owns guns in the place I work. The topic never came up, but when it did, I found out a lot of them do.
A better question is, are you willing to bet your child's life that they don't?
You're the one who isn't getting it. I know where the "problem" originated. I'm pointing out that it is quite possible that some people will find the "autocomplete" suggestions offensive no matter what they are, and you might as well point this out to Google by notifying them about every possible word. The implication, which I'll spell out for the slow ones, is that I would write a perl script that would go through the online dictionary and submit every word as offensive.
So the API is: Type your name into the Google search field
That's not the API I asked for, so you really don't get it at all.
So if the board of directors decides to fund Politician Bob (tax cuts for corporations) from the corporate treasury while the majority of their employees, who also happen to be on minimum wage, would rather fund Politician Joe (minimum wage increases), whose speech is it?
The people who own the company who hired the directors. You certainly don't think the money belongs to the employees just because they work there, do you?
If the company is majority foreign-owned, whose speech is it?
The foreigners, who are then falling afoul of existing campaign finance laws.
(I am also reminded that the guillotine was once considered a marvel of humane efficiency).
I'm sure you could come up with 100 more irrelevancies to comment on.
Because the point is, with or without a warrant the tapping of the phones of journalists on this scale is terrifying.
Had there been tapping, that would have been terrible. Perhaps you meant to say "with or without warrant the outright murder and torture of journalists on this scale is terrifying"? That would be a much better escalation of the matter into the hyperbolic.
This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.
No, it is the thinking that makes it legal to record the SMTP "MAIL FROM" and "RCPT TO" transactions for email, since that is the closest analogy to "what number was called from where and when". Email headers have a lot more information than that, such as "Subject", "In Reply To", etc...
By the way, every mail server I have records the SMTP info. Illegal should this be?
Maybe we should also be asking what compelled the director of one of the most powerful intelligence organizations in the country to feel he had to tell his fellow citizens something that was so important, he was willing to risk his career and his freedom to do.
Apparently nothing, but a good attempt at smearing someone. From TFA:
In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."
Maybe we should also be asking him if he's stopped beating his wife?
As for the "seized" phone records that the AP "wants back", should we point out that they are just copies of the information and that the AP didn't actually have any physical object taken from them. It's just a copy of information.
And perhaps we should point out that an investigation is just an investigation and not harassment and they didn't lose any rights. After all, all they may have to do is pay taxes... oh, sorry, that's the IRS investigating tax-exempt political organizations and threatening them with back taxes and penalties, but not actually harassing them or limiting their rights in any way (according to some./ers.) How is looking at tax, I mean phone, records in any way hurting anyone?
Should we not compare the allegedly illegal antics of one branch of the executive with another? If it's ok for one, why not the other?
Slashdot Mirror
So - you're more interested in liability, than education?
How much education will a school that has been shut down because it has been sued into bankruptcy do? How many teachers will be lost when just one liability suit is lost for a couple million dollars? You can't teach anyone if you can't hire teachers.
Oh yeah - it IS the schools responsibility to TEACH the kids how to experiment safely.
Now say something I disagree with. Having a student ask an authority figure at a school if it is safe to mix X and Y and then that student running off and doing it on their own is NOT teaching them to experiment safely, it's accepting responsibility for the inevitable failures the student experiences, without having anyone who knows better on hand to stop them.
Canada, a larger nation then America,
Canada's 2011 population was 34.5 million people. The USA: 314 million. Canada is larger than the US?
We're talking about getting PEOPLE to use a system, not how much vast empty space there is to measure in square meters instead of square feet. "America" (The US) is nine times the size of Canada in population.
Population doesn't matter, just size.
Nonsense.
You seem to be making the tired old argument that morality comes from religion.
I said nothing of the sort. I said, pretty clearly, that religions include ethical and moral standards, and that some people confuse the religion and the ethics. If a religion believes in certain ethical standards, then imposing those ethical standards upon others is an unacceptable intrusion of the religion. It doesn't matter where the origin of the ethics came from, if a religious person suggests they be followed it is religion.
"Thou shall not kill" was the example. Did you seriously think that I said that the only place you find that ethical standard was in Christianity?
I see religion--specifically American Christian religions--imposing an interpretation of an old book of fairy tales on me and my countrymen.
Since they aren't forcing anyone to believe any religious doctrines, you are wrong. I'm sorry that you think ethical standards come only from religion -- pecifically American Christian religions -- but they do not. The day the law says you must go to a certain church or believe pre-millenial doctrines, you'd have a point.
However, we have had laws in the past based on Christianity. Blue laws, sodomy laws, adultery laws.
You think that you have to be a Christian to think that adultery is wrong? Or that any of the other things are? Oh, boy, you better never go to a country with Sharia law. I'd counter and say that you have to be atheist and/or hedonist to believe that those things are moral -- so here's an example of an implicit religion making laws. Bad for one, bad for both, right?
"Honey, we probably should have stressed that you don't mix chemicals until you're sure what to expect from them!
That statement is the school taking responsibility for unauthorized and unexpected experiments undertaken by any student. It wasn't the school's fault that they didn't tell her explicitly not to mix random things together to see what happens.
Next time, ask BEFORE you mix the stuff up!"
And that statement would be the school accepting responsibility for whatever experiments the student comes up with. "Hey, you told my child it was ok to mix X and Y and now she's lost a finger or two and the house has serious damage ... I'm suing...".
Bullshit. Most religious people simply cannot grasp the concept that their religion should not permeate all things.
Citation required. "Most"? Hardly. Some? Maybe. But you're now conflating conservative/right with religious/zealot, and by doing so you show a strong bias. I could also point out that some atheists believe that their religion should permeate all things. And that some muslims ditto. So, like I said, freedom FROM religion requires acknowledgement of things that are religious in nature but that call themselves something else.
And, as I said, you've confused a belief that ethics and morals are important with religion. You've seen that the religions you hate promote ethical standards and thus those ethical standards are an unfair imposition upon you. "Thou shall not kill" is an unacceptable intrusion of religion into your life; "don't kill me" is fine, even though the natural flipside to your desire not to be killed is a prohibition in general on killing others. "Turn the other cheek" is a religious saying, unacceptable. "Imagine world peace" is a new age warm-fuzzy saying; it's great!
They would impose their religion on everyone even if there wasn't some ridiculous argument about evolution...
You're the one using the word evolution. I stayed away from it deliberately, because so often the term "evolution" gets converted into "origin of life" and used interchangeably -- as you just did.
which has nothing to do with the origin of life by the way.
Then why did you bring it up when I said "origin of life"?
I support the right to bear arms, as well as the right for a woman to have an abortion. I support the Death Penalty (in some circumstances), and I also support assistance for those that need it. I support gay marriage, and I also support the Free Market. I support the freedom OF religion, as well as the freedom FROM religion. Strange. I don't seem to fit into either category.
No, that's a pretty good representation of the right. What you may have been thinking you said that makes you lefty is something like: "I support the right for a woman to have a taxpayer funded abortion upon demand for any reason". What you actually said is what the left usually tries to claim the right doesn't believe in, so excuse me when I see what you actually said as shorthand for the longer, less conservative position.
You also said "assistance for those who need it", and the main difference between left and right here is the definition of "need". Perhaps also to some extent whether all assistance needs to be through mandated taxes or by voluntary charity.
And absolutely the right supports freedom FROM religion, if you properly include in "religion" all things that are faith-based -- like science that claims to know for a fact the origin of life, and atheism. What the right doesn't support is freedom from morals and ethics, which are often mapped into principles that are also found in some religions and so are often confused as pushing some specific religion. "Thou shall not kill" is a pretty reasonable ethical and moral stand, whether or not it is worded as King James' translators writ.
The only issue that truly is a left/right one is "gay marriage", where the left expects to take over the concept of marriage from those who attach special significance to it and cannot accept the legal equivalence of civil union. I think you would find a fair number of conservatives who have no problem with civil union, and who wonder why civil unions are not sufficient to meet the complaints of legal inequities gay couples experience.
His point was that you can't hurt the perception because all cops are scum and that this global opinion is "valid". He's wrong. It's doing the same kind of thing that the media does to hackers when some script kiddy pulls a lameass stunt that makes the news, and we'd be right to complain that this was an invalid stereotype.
If you want people to try to differentiate between the script kiddy destructive hacker and what we want to think of ourselves as hackers, you really do need to grant other people the same differentiation when one of "them" does something bad.
They are if you take context into consideration: FBI Ass. D.I.C. George V. was implying that police should never be considered suspect;
That's not what he said at all, if the quote was accurate. He said that the police department should be the last place you have to worry about this, as in, police shouldn't be doing this so you shouldn't have to consider them suspect. The IMPLICATION is that they DO it and you DO have to be worried. That's 180 degrees from your interpretation. "Shouldn't have to" is much much much different than "should never".
OK, so this cop did do something, he re-enforced a perfectly valid view point.
Valid? Ok, so stereotyping is good just as long as it is a negative stereotype about someone you don't like. Got it.
Hate to break it to you, but painting all cops with the same brush is as bad as painting all "hackers" with the same brush or all Chinese people or all ... Yeah, some cops are douchebags. Not all of them are, despite your valid viewpoint otherwise.
Look, police informants are not whistle blowers. You may think they deserve to be protected,
Look, I know RTFA is not common here on /., but by doing so you make yourself look like an idiot. These people were not "police informants". Here's what the fine article has to say about the people now in danger:
Oh, my God! These people DARED to report their car stolen to THE POLICE! They deserve no protection, no consideration, no concern, from rich techno-geeks who have enough idle time to read /. Why not just execute them as soon as they finish dialing the phone to make the report? Especially those who are reporting police brutality?
No, these are folks who were helping the police.
So, if I call the police because my property was stolen and I want a police report filed so insurance will cover it, I'm somehow "helping police"? If I "file a complaint" about the police, I'm somehow helping them? If I call in to report, in confidence, a criminal who is vandalizing the neighborhood, I'm somehow "helping the police" shoot a bunch of miners?
What a fascinating universe you live in, with all the definitions of things upside down and the moon made of green cheese and all.
There is no excuse for putting 16000 people's lives at risk when the worst thing they've done is report some criminal activity to the cops.
On another note, isn't the point of "Anonymous", written into the name and everything, that there is no real structure, that there are no real decision makers beyond everyone individually choosing what they're going to work on,
No. You're confusing the words "anonymous" and "anarchist".
Well none of the people I know even have a gun so I'm pretty safe there.
I bet you're wrong. I was surprised to find out who owns guns in the place I work. The topic never came up, but when it did, I found out a lot of them do.
A better question is, are you willing to bet your child's life that they don't?
I've even tried changing my pronunciation from "Zed" to "Zee" .. still no dice.
Perhaps the problem is that you were using "z" as a number?
So people cannot handle criminal cases without central gov't so is central gov't made of Martians?
You're so far out in left field as to what was said that the hot dog vendors don't even come by.
New Zealand has immigration laws that would prevent this.
People don't need government, especially central gov't to carry out justice for criminal acts.
Yeah, that vigilante justice system works so well and protects the innocent just fine.
They even named the courts after an Aussie mammal: kangaroos.
You don't get this.
You're the one who isn't getting it. I know where the "problem" originated. I'm pointing out that it is quite possible that some people will find the "autocomplete" suggestions offensive no matter what they are, and you might as well point this out to Google by notifying them about every possible word. The implication, which I'll spell out for the slow ones, is that I would write a perl script that would go through the online dictionary and submit every word as offensive.
So the API is: Type your name into the Google search field
That's not the API I asked for, so you really don't get it at all.
So if the board of directors decides to fund Politician Bob (tax cuts for corporations) from the corporate treasury while the majority of their employees, who also happen to be on minimum wage, would rather fund Politician Joe (minimum wage increases), whose speech is it?
The people who own the company who hired the directors. You certainly don't think the money belongs to the employees just because they work there, do you?
If the company is majority foreign-owned, whose speech is it?
The foreigners, who are then falling afoul of existing campaign finance laws.
(I am also reminded that the guillotine was once considered a marvel of humane efficiency).
I'm sure you could come up with 100 more irrelevancies to comment on.
Your hatred ...
You are projecting again, Basil.
I fail to see how someone can think that giving politicians money is a good thing.
Ergo, giving a politician money is a good thing.
Can't you see that that leads to you thinking that your "vote" should count more inherently by virtue of you giving more money?
Can't you see that I was making a point in reference to someone saying that it was unethical to give money to politicians?
Just sit back, look at it rationally and wonder about these things you take for granted. Please.
Just sit back and stop making rash assumptions about other people. Please.
I have perl.
What's the API for the "notify Google of offensive autocomplete words"?
Because the point is, with or without a warrant the tapping of the phones of journalists on this scale is terrifying.
Had there been tapping, that would have been terrible. Perhaps you meant to say "with or without warrant the outright murder and torture of journalists on this scale is terrifying"? That would be a much better escalation of the matter into the hyperbolic.
This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.
No, it is the thinking that makes it legal to record the SMTP "MAIL FROM" and "RCPT TO" transactions for email, since that is the closest analogy to "what number was called from where and when". Email headers have a lot more information than that, such as "Subject", "In Reply To", etc...
By the way, every mail server I have records the SMTP info. Illegal should this be?
Maybe we should also be asking what compelled the director of one of the most powerful intelligence organizations in the country to feel he had to tell his fellow citizens something that was so important, he was willing to risk his career and his freedom to do.
Apparently nothing, but a good attempt at smearing someone. From TFA:
Maybe we should also be asking him if he's stopped beating his wife?
As for the "seized" phone records that the AP "wants back", should we point out that they are just copies of the information and that the AP didn't actually have any physical object taken from them. It's just a copy of information.
And perhaps we should point out that an investigation is just an investigation and not harassment and they didn't lose any rights. After all, all they may have to do is pay taxes ... oh, sorry, that's the IRS investigating tax-exempt political organizations and threatening them with back taxes and penalties, but not actually harassing them or limiting their rights in any way (according to some ./ers.) How is looking at tax, I mean phone, records in any way hurting anyone?
Should we not compare the allegedly illegal antics of one branch of the executive with another? If it's ok for one, why not the other?