The main reason to call it Gnu/Linux, as I see it, is that the Linux kernel by itself is useless without some sort of additional code, which in Linux distros is typically from the Gnu project. The combination of Linux kernel with Gnu userland is useful, so Gnu/Linux refers to the components in the basic system.
Also, the use of the word "freetards" generally marks the user as not worthy of further listening.
Revealing classified information to another person not cleared for it is a crime. Once the information has been leaked, it's legal to publish it. What has been leaked and told to an unauthorized person is Snowden's responsibility.
The NSA serves a number of useful purposes. We need that sort of intelligence agency. Its operations outside the US are de facto legitimate. The NSA tries to stay legal, but it has a stated position that it will push the law as far as it can.
Revealing what they're doing in the US is necessary, and I believe a Good Thing. Revealing out-of-country operations is neither.
Reportedly, in the case of the Silk Road bitcoins, the Feds asked around for who owned them. Since the owner(s) would be tied to criminal activity, nobody came forward. What should the FBI have done?
I wouldn't go around trying to nail down evidence for $200, personally, even if I trusted the award.
Who is considered a legitimate member of GG? Where do I find the membership list? How do we agree on what's harassment? How do we prove it happened? How do we know there is a cash award, and how sure are we that it will be given? Any of these sound like reasons not to try to make the equivalent of my afternoon's salary.
Got evidence of physical and emotional abuse? That's accusations of criminal behavior, and should not be done lightly.
In what way was having sex with a reviewer with the expectation of getting a good review out of line with what I've been able to find of ethics in game journalism, assuming that is what happened? I can understand a revolt against the state of games journalism, but this seemed awfully focused to the point of tunnel vision.
Also, it's very important that we protect LGBT rights and the rights of Muslims who support killing LGBT's.
Actually, the rights the LGBT community has campaigned for are things like the right to have their own sex life without official interference, the right to marry whom they love, the sorts of things other people take for granted. Rarely if ever do they campaign for special treatment.
And, yes, Muslims have the right to their religious beliefs, the same as everyone else. They can support killing LGBTs in principle, just like others can support the killing of Muslims in principle. Neither party can legally incite murder. Everyone has the right to be an asshole, and that's important, because it's really impossible to tell the difference between somebody just being an asshole and someone who has opinions most people find abhorrent, and we need those opinions to get floated every so often.
I am curious how you figure who has power on social media. Do the ones who annoy you have some sort of special privilege?
People think of the Nazis (I doubt that many people know they preferred to be called National Socialists) as a right-wing party because they follow the historians who correctly label it as right-wing. If they just thought that evil had to be right-wing, they'd consider the Stalinist Soviet Union as right-wing also.
However, this goes against the conservatives' characterization of themselves as victims, so we have a lot of idiots believing the Nazis were left wing or something.
The military has more sophisticated security models than Joe Shmoe, but doesn't necessarily need stronger encryption. For example, the orders for an attack need to remain secret until it's too late to do anything about it, and in some circumstances that doesn't even require encryption if things are moving fast enough. Encryption that, as far as we can tell, is unbreakable is cheap and easy nowadays, and there's no reason the JCS and Joe C. Shmoe can't use it equally.
I've been a techno-geek longer than most of you have been alive, and I don't want online voting. There's just too many things that can go wrong. With the current system, I'm relying on simple handling of pieces of paper in ways I understand. I'm not nearly as confident of my ability to audit voting machine code, my ability to verify that the code running on the machine is built correctly from the source I audit, verify the communications, and so on.
Personally, if there are candidates tied such that there isn't a two-sigma preference for one, I have no objection to either one being declared the winner.
How we do it around here is that we normally go by the optical scanners. We also select precincts at random to compare the paper ballots with the optical scanners. If a candidate presents sufficient reason for a recount, or if the votes are too close, we can count all the paper ballots. All ballots are cast in rooms with provisions for observers. Once the ballots are cast, the boxes are sealed and not opened except when necessary, and in the presence of observers. Typically, both major parties will send observers when called for, and there's no reason other parties can't.
The US is not responsible for Assange's stay in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Assange is accused of rape. This is not just a strange Swedish legal concept, since the UK courts agreed that the allegations would constitute rape, and that Sweden had made an entirely legitimate extradition request. The UK required Assange to show up to be extradited.
Assange then decided to flee the UK justice system and hole up in the embassy. He is a fugitive from justice in the UK, and that remains the case regardless of whatever he did in Sweden.
In order to justify his actions, Assange made up stories about the US wanting him, with no apparent evidence. He was never in the US, and did not extract the classified information. Manning committed a crime (whether you think it justifiable or not), and has been convicted. Assange published what Manning leaked, and this is perfectly legal in the US. Assange said he was afraid of being sent to Sweden because he feared that US authorities would snatch him, which doesn't explain why he went to Sweden and the UK in the first place.
So, technically, your statement is true. If Obama and/or Clinton is responsible for keeping Assange cooped up, then any consequential statement makes the conditional true. If Obama is responsible, then the Universe is made of green cheese. Perfectly true.
One problem with the DNC emails is that the release is one-sided. In isolation, we have no way of knowing whether this was business as usual, dirtier than usual, or cleaner than usual. I don't know that we have good reason to think they've been unaltered. Even if they're accurate, it isn't clear that this isn't an attempt to lie with partial truths. They're clearly an attempt by one or more foreign organizations, quite possibly an unfriendly foreign government, to illegally influence a US election, and we need to remember that.
If anyone changes their vote from Clinton to Trump on the basis of the emails, they're acting as the people releasing the emails, and quite possibly Vladimir Putin, want them to do. This means rewarding the malicious activity.
Clinton did not do all sorts of bad things with classified data. She did very limited bad things, and nobody's come up with an example of someone who mishandled a small number of classified documents through negligence, with no evidence that it created any harm, and was criminally prosecuted. It may still be against the law (I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer), but similar cases have generally been dealt with administratively.
As far as other accusations go, I've seen so many lame accusations hurled at Clinton that I don't necessarily feel like investigating new ones, particularly ones involving the DNC rather than Clinton or her campaign. Once the accusations about Benghazi die down, I may become more interested.
I take it you're in favor of firing all the faculty and administration officials involved, then, for keeping children in the same building (heck, the same classroom) as a probable bomb.
Either it looked like a bomb, and the school officials acted extremely foolishly, or it didn't, and the school officials acted extremely badly. Pick one.
An English teacher did make that call, and obviously decided it wasn't dangerous. If it's clear to an English teacher that something is not a bomb, why investigate as if it were?
If the thing had looked like a bomb, a lot of people in his school should be fired for gross endangerment. If I suspected something was a bomb, I wouldn't confiscate it and keep it in my desk while I continued on normally. He never claimed it was a bomb. Therefore, he not only didn't make a bomb, he didn't make a hoax bomb. Therefore, the authorities were definitely in the wrong.
That his skin color and/or religion were related to the mistreatment is more speculation, but the mistreatment is clear.
I believe that's the Florida law also. However, we don't know that he picked the fight. He certainly bears some moral responsibility, since nobody would have died if he'd just stayed in his truck like the police wanted him to, but that's not proof that he started the actual confrontation.
I doubt there's a single state where you can start a fight, lose, and kill your opponent legally. That's just too big a loophole.
Slashdot Mirror
The main reason to call it Gnu/Linux, as I see it, is that the Linux kernel by itself is useless without some sort of additional code, which in Linux distros is typically from the Gnu project. The combination of Linux kernel with Gnu userland is useful, so Gnu/Linux refers to the components in the basic system.
Also, the use of the word "freetards" generally marks the user as not worthy of further listening.
Revealing classified information to another person not cleared for it is a crime. Once the information has been leaked, it's legal to publish it. What has been leaked and told to an unauthorized person is Snowden's responsibility.
The NSA serves a number of useful purposes. We need that sort of intelligence agency. Its operations outside the US are de facto legitimate. The NSA tries to stay legal, but it has a stated position that it will push the law as far as it can.
Revealing what they're doing in the US is necessary, and I believe a Good Thing. Revealing out-of-country operations is neither.
Reportedly, in the case of the Silk Road bitcoins, the Feds asked around for who owned them. Since the owner(s) would be tied to criminal activity, nobody came forward. What should the FBI have done?
I wouldn't go around trying to nail down evidence for $200, personally, even if I trusted the award.
Who is considered a legitimate member of GG? Where do I find the membership list? How do we agree on what's harassment? How do we prove it happened? How do we know there is a cash award, and how sure are we that it will be given? Any of these sound like reasons not to try to make the equivalent of my afternoon's salary.
Got evidence of physical and emotional abuse? That's accusations of criminal behavior, and should not be done lightly.
In what way was having sex with a reviewer with the expectation of getting a good review out of line with what I've been able to find of ethics in game journalism, assuming that is what happened? I can understand a revolt against the state of games journalism, but this seemed awfully focused to the point of tunnel vision.
Actually, the rights the LGBT community has campaigned for are things like the right to have their own sex life without official interference, the right to marry whom they love, the sorts of things other people take for granted. Rarely if ever do they campaign for special treatment.
And, yes, Muslims have the right to their religious beliefs, the same as everyone else. They can support killing LGBTs in principle, just like others can support the killing of Muslims in principle. Neither party can legally incite murder. Everyone has the right to be an asshole, and that's important, because it's really impossible to tell the difference between somebody just being an asshole and someone who has opinions most people find abhorrent, and we need those opinions to get floated every so often.
I am curious how you figure who has power on social media. Do the ones who annoy you have some sort of special privilege?
Okay, so at least two people left Twitter since they started a Safety Council. Do you have a point?
People think of the Nazis (I doubt that many people know they preferred to be called National Socialists) as a right-wing party because they follow the historians who correctly label it as right-wing. If they just thought that evil had to be right-wing, they'd consider the Stalinist Soviet Union as right-wing also.
However, this goes against the conservatives' characterization of themselves as victims, so we have a lot of idiots believing the Nazis were left wing or something.
The military has more sophisticated security models than Joe Shmoe, but doesn't necessarily need stronger encryption. For example, the orders for an attack need to remain secret until it's too late to do anything about it, and in some circumstances that doesn't even require encryption if things are moving fast enough. Encryption that, as far as we can tell, is unbreakable is cheap and easy nowadays, and there's no reason the JCS and Joe C. Shmoe can't use it equally.
I've been a techno-geek longer than most of you have been alive, and I don't want online voting. There's just too many things that can go wrong. With the current system, I'm relying on simple handling of pieces of paper in ways I understand. I'm not nearly as confident of my ability to audit voting machine code, my ability to verify that the code running on the machine is built correctly from the source I audit, verify the communications, and so on.
Personally, if there are candidates tied such that there isn't a two-sigma preference for one, I have no objection to either one being declared the winner.
How we do it around here is that we normally go by the optical scanners. We also select precincts at random to compare the paper ballots with the optical scanners. If a candidate presents sufficient reason for a recount, or if the votes are too close, we can count all the paper ballots. All ballots are cast in rooms with provisions for observers. Once the ballots are cast, the boxes are sealed and not opened except when necessary, and in the presence of observers. Typically, both major parties will send observers when called for, and there's no reason other parties can't.
Okay, darken the ovals next to the candidates you want, in order of preference. Works just fine around here.
I didn't find Vista, when first released, to be as annoying as Windows 10 has been.
The US is not responsible for Assange's stay in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Assange is accused of rape. This is not just a strange Swedish legal concept, since the UK courts agreed that the allegations would constitute rape, and that Sweden had made an entirely legitimate extradition request. The UK required Assange to show up to be extradited.
Assange then decided to flee the UK justice system and hole up in the embassy. He is a fugitive from justice in the UK, and that remains the case regardless of whatever he did in Sweden.
In order to justify his actions, Assange made up stories about the US wanting him, with no apparent evidence. He was never in the US, and did not extract the classified information. Manning committed a crime (whether you think it justifiable or not), and has been convicted. Assange published what Manning leaked, and this is perfectly legal in the US. Assange said he was afraid of being sent to Sweden because he feared that US authorities would snatch him, which doesn't explain why he went to Sweden and the UK in the first place.
So, technically, your statement is true. If Obama and/or Clinton is responsible for keeping Assange cooped up, then any consequential statement makes the conditional true. If Obama is responsible, then the Universe is made of green cheese. Perfectly true.
One problem with the DNC emails is that the release is one-sided. In isolation, we have no way of knowing whether this was business as usual, dirtier than usual, or cleaner than usual. I don't know that we have good reason to think they've been unaltered. Even if they're accurate, it isn't clear that this isn't an attempt to lie with partial truths. They're clearly an attempt by one or more foreign organizations, quite possibly an unfriendly foreign government, to illegally influence a US election, and we need to remember that.
If anyone changes their vote from Clinton to Trump on the basis of the emails, they're acting as the people releasing the emails, and quite possibly Vladimir Putin, want them to do. This means rewarding the malicious activity.
It's a complicated situation.
Clinton did not do all sorts of bad things with classified data. She did very limited bad things, and nobody's come up with an example of someone who mishandled a small number of classified documents through negligence, with no evidence that it created any harm, and was criminally prosecuted. It may still be against the law (I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer), but similar cases have generally been dealt with administratively.
As far as other accusations go, I've seen so many lame accusations hurled at Clinton that I don't necessarily feel like investigating new ones, particularly ones involving the DNC rather than Clinton or her campaign. Once the accusations about Benghazi die down, I may become more interested.
In which case the teachers and administration at the school should be fired for keeping children in the same building as a possible bomb.
I take it you're in favor of firing all the faculty and administration officials involved, then, for keeping children in the same building (heck, the same classroom) as a probable bomb.
Either it looked like a bomb, and the school officials acted extremely foolishly, or it didn't, and the school officials acted extremely badly. Pick one.
An English teacher did make that call, and obviously decided it wasn't dangerous. If it's clear to an English teacher that something is not a bomb, why investigate as if it were?
If the thing had looked like a bomb, a lot of people in his school should be fired for gross endangerment. If I suspected something was a bomb, I wouldn't confiscate it and keep it in my desk while I continued on normally. He never claimed it was a bomb. Therefore, he not only didn't make a bomb, he didn't make a hoax bomb. Therefore, the authorities were definitely in the wrong.
That his skin color and/or religion were related to the mistreatment is more speculation, but the mistreatment is clear.
I believe that's the Florida law also. However, we don't know that he picked the fight. He certainly bears some moral responsibility, since nobody would have died if he'd just stayed in his truck like the police wanted him to, but that's not proof that he started the actual confrontation.
I doubt there's a single state where you can start a fight, lose, and kill your opponent legally. That's just too big a loophole.
And, since we don't know how the fight started, we don't have the proof we'd need to convict Zimmerman. Simple.
Yeah, and juries used to let lynch mobs off.
It isn't treason, but there's a difference between revealing what the NSA is doing domestically and what it's doing abroad. Snowden did both.