As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery.
In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring responded that "it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system
If he's in the Ecuadorian Embassy, then the Swedes have no entry rights unless granted to them by the Ecuadorian ambassador. Therefore, it's not Swedish law preventing them from interrogating/questioning Assange, but the legal right of the Ecuadorian government to prevent him from being questioned on their sovereign property.
If they want to talk to him, they only need to ask and I have no doubt it would be granted.
The problem is that this would be an utter waste of time as anyone who had ever been through a police interview would tell you since the Assange would be free to terminate the interview at will by simply walking out of the room where the prosecutors could not follow.
Also, anything they mention in the interview would not help their cause one bit. Either they would make it obvious that the charges against him are utter drivel that will not stand up in court by having no worthwhile evidence to put on the table in which case he can be fairly sure that the idea of him being sent onwards to the US to be thrown in a supermax next to Mr Manning is really on the cards or they would have a tons of evidence that they put to him that makes him realise he really does stand a chance of being convicted of some sort of statutory rape charge and thrown in jail in Sweden then deported as an undesirable upon his release.
Obviously the flight back to Oz would have to stop in the US to refuel along the way:)
PS - I know he has lost his Oz citizenship but if Sweden were deporting him as a convicted criminal I reckon they would send him there anyway then just let the US intercept him enroute.
The rule (at least in the US) is very simple: You are not required, nor should you allow any law enforcement officer into your home or business without a search warrant.
What happens if the police kick shit out of you in your own home for 8 hours with the FBI who shoot you while you are being interviewed?
What the constitution states seems to be pretty irrelevant in light of the shooting of Ibragim Todashev. It seems plausible that the officers in question just decided to execute him as they could not prove anything or because they were waterboarding him in his kitchen sink and he accidentally drowned.
If they can get away with murder, they can probably get away with the odd illegal search.
Why should the company have to regain any trust anyway?
it needs to regain my trust because currently i dont' trust it to keep my data confidential. instead of "teh cloudz" I'll use desktop services where I own my data. because I don't trust goog.
Do you trust anyone else not to share your data with the NSA? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
Ever try to edit a hosts file in Win7 on an administrator account, and then still had to reopen the file running AS administrator to accomplish it, making sure to keep your changes available to paste back in? It's nonsense.
No, its not. If you could edit the hosts file programmatically without jumping through this many hoops then you could force entries into the hosts file that redirected traffic to your bank to a different server.
Just the administrator account should be enough, but too many people use administrator accounts for day to day stuff just so they can install software. On linux you end up needing to put in the root password or use sudo for tons of stuff, windows have tried to avoid this but some things like editing the hosts file are such dangerous edge cases compared to what most users do that they need to be protected differently.
To be honest, there is a strong argument that you should NEVER edit your hosts file on a windows machine (ok, I admit I do not always follow this advice). If you want to do crap like that maybe you should run a local DNS server just so you know what you are doing, especially if you run a linux server on your network since DNSMasq is so easy to use. It might still involve editing a hosts file, but at least it is a hosts file on a separate server and becomes the central point for all local DNS changes you make. Using DNSmasq also lets you test anything you are testing on a number of devices on your private network without having to keep track of hosts file entries on each device.
Seriously, DNSMasq is a much better shout for most stuff like this if you need to do it regularly.
I love how this is an article about how goog is increasing security, yet 95% of the posts are about NSA snooping. This is the flip side of the PRISM stuff - a company will never be able to prove that NSA is NOT snooping. Once the public loses faith, it will be really hard for a company to regain it. maybe this has already happened...
Why should the company have to regain any trust anyway? The fact is the US government is currently mandating that they do all of this crap and issuing them with gag orders so Google can't tell anyone.
The only way Google can get out of this is relocate their HQ to russia, exactly where the Brin family escaped from. Even if they did this it would probably be no better as Putin is not exactly Mr Privacy.
The truth is that companies cannot do a damn thing providing congress and the supreme court keeps saying this stuff is all fine and dandy. The US Military and spy agencies calls the shots since 9 - 11. Sometimes I often wonder if they just sat back and watched it happen knowing it would strengthen their hand for decades.
I don't want a BT-like situation where the government entity can dictate policy to private companies when it's unpopular and unconstitutional (ie ban on porn).
I am not sure you have any clue what your talking about here.
The UK government can dictate policy to BT because they can pass laws that BT (like any other company doing business within our shores) has to follow and we do not have a list of constitutional rights quite like you do in the US. There are cases when UK laws are shot down by higher powers like the EU or due to us signing treaties on human rights but nobody has yet taken this to our supreme court to decide whether the right to watch violent rape porn is actually included in our basic human rights. I say violent rape porn because that is all the UK government is currently looking to ban and it is currently a long way from being law.
They are also looking at making all ISP's (including ones that are not BT like Virgin) also provide an opt in / opt out to other porn though at the same time but then will just be a case of you telling your ISP you want to watch porn on the net and then them letting you. I am not saying this is not a crap idea or doomed to failure, but I do not think it is quite the same as a ban on all porn. I actually think it is doomed to failure as the filter will have so many false positives that most people have to opt in just so they can browse wikipedia even if it does become law a few years down the line.
Currently though we are still at the point of an unpopular prime minister in a weak coalition government that barely holds a majority moaning about something that he knows will be popular with his own parties supporters in order to distract from the shit storm he is currently trying to keep quiet about as a result of his party being openly bought by various lobbyists from the cigarette and alcohol industries. He knew that his recent climb down on cigarette packets having to be plain was going to be unpopular with parents, so tried to come up with something else that would win him a few votes back or at least distract them.
No need for U.S. or international pressure. Finland is subject of multiple so called "intelectual property" agreements, which require lot of rules in question to be implemented in national law. And you can't overrule it - sorry, that's why they went "IP trade agreements" in first place.
Finland could ignore these treaties. America would go to the WTO crying foul, the dispute settlement body would probably agree, then finland would have to either repeal the relevant law or suffer the consequences. In this case the most likely consequence would be the US getting to take retaliatory measures of some kind against Finland, either an import tariff on Finnish goods or maybe even getting to crap all over finnish copyright.
This might be just what we need to get rid of Linus as he loses the copyright on linux to some huge american corporation (obviously this bit is a joke).
The submitter is looking for a code-based solution to a sociological/psychological problem, and it's just not going to be effective.
The real solution is to educate and train your users so they don't fall prey to these sorts of attacks. I know a lot of IT people aren't comfortable dealing with people, and I know it takes quite a bit of time and doesn't look as snazzy on your résumé - but, really, it's the best long-term approach.
Some people are just too stupid to train in this manner. This is especially true if you are a system admin for an office that employs dolly bird PA's just to make tea and look pretty on the front desk when a client comes to visit.
Blokes can be just as stupid too though, I had to clear up a PC after one of our support team clicked on one of these BS fishing emails as he installed some software that "cleaned" his Windows XP PC. He just has an inability to pay attention to what he is doing. He will most likely spend his entire like manning a helpdesk phone line helping people allow popups (We have to use them as many elearning courses are designed to only work in a popup and we host other peoples courseware).
Often these people are employed in dead end jobs earning no money so training them to take their head out of their arse is like trying to get blood out of a stone. Hiring someone with a brain would cost more and they might not need it for the job they have to do anyway.
Not that any form of network security for this is a magic bullet either. Unfortunately there is no one solution. All you can do is try and block as much as possible at the email gateway via a decent spam filter and make sure people only have the minimum admin rights on the PC's that they need to do their job. The final layer of protection though is making sure you have a damn good disaster recovery policy to allow you to recover a machine from nightly backups easily and can also rollback to previous days until you get a clean image.
The best way to protect your computer from malicious Javascript embedded within a PDF is to not install Adobe Reader. If you cannot open the file, your computer cannot be infected.
In the real world that is simply not an option. I have to be able to view PDF's on my work PC.
This original question seemed to be posed by someone wanting to protect a network, in that case he definitely cannot mandate no PDF's. The trick to being a good admin is doing your best without getting in peoples way. Blocking all PDF's at the mail server would definately get in peoples way.
Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.
What about the victims right to privacy? Ok, they had a right to life that was violated by their killer but didn't they also have a right to privacy? What if the victim has no clothes on when they are killed should it still be ok to publish the video of their killing?
I actually think this is somewhat similar to child porn in that it should be illegal not just to make snuff movies, but also just to be in possession of one. This would make online distribution a definite no-no.
The music inductry should realize that it's these younger people that are buying most of the music, especially the latest pop hits, and should price accordingly.
Why?
Selling 50,000,000 copies for $1 generates the same turnover as selling 100,000,000 for 50c. The difference is that processing 50,000,000 transactions is cheaper than processing 100,000,000 so they make more profit by selling half as many at twice the price. These are just figures plucked out of the air but they are designed to illustrate how choosing a higher price point can make you more money even though less people can afford to pay it.
Since I am not a record company accountant I cannot be 100% sure which way they make more money, but I reckon they probably choose to keep prices high for a reason.
Then again, the economy sucks eggs, so take what you can get. Trade up as soon as you can and don't worry about the company you're leaving.
I hadn't checked in a while my hourly rate as I have been salaried for the past decade so was plucking figures out of thin air. After having worked it out it seems more like 2 minutes to earn each dollar.
So what's your explanation for the falling numbers of people who are willing to pay for the "theater experience"?
Home TV screens being bigger mainly.
Also, there are now other forms of entertainment to take into account too like computer games.
I think if you take the amount spent on movies, tv, music and games all together you will find that it has not change much over the past few years. It might have gone down a little actually but that is probably just due to the means of delivery getting cheaper so the costs to and user going down as well when you take inflation into account. I think if you compare the cost of an album in the shops now to in the 60's the price has actually fallen.
The big change though is that piracy has become easier from a technical perspective with the advent of digital recordings so people who refuse to pay for their entertainment find it easier. Also, there is the notion that nothing is lost by that extra copy somehow making it acceptable.
Are you sure? I earn $1 in about 5 minutes so it seems fair to pay that to me, especially for the amount of time and effort someone has to put in to create a song that I like. The problem is that to most young people (who engage in most piracy) that 1$ is worth far more since they earn less. A cup of coffee that last about 5 minutes costs twice that and can't be consumed twice.
When I was a kid I would go round gathering up supermarket trolleys to return that people had walked off and left the coin deposit in. I could not understand why the hell anybody did this, now I can. If I lose $10 I am slightly annoyed but nothing more, to really piss me off I would have to lose a few hundred. If get too drunk and miss the last train home I just get a cab all the way, that costs about $80.
This is the real problem, the vast gap in earnings between those of us who have a real career type job and the low wage McJobs that are open to young people. That vast gap in ability to earn money means that the price points chosen for lots of products like DVD's and music now are very high from young peoples point of view. Young professionals are often the target market for music and entertainment now, and that means if you are still a student the prices chosen seem obscene.
That accounts for much of President Obama's actions in the war against al Qaida.
What war against al Qaida? You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion? You mean the lost war against the Taliban, US allies against Russia, who were no threat against the US, and held no grudge until being invaded?
8000 American troops dead, >600,000 Iraqi excess deaths, and worldwide loss of respect. Beats "negligence or inaction" eh?
Yes but it did enable Iraqi oil to be sold on the open market again, unlike before when it was blackmarket sale only. It could have gone on like that for decades too as no fucker in Iraq was ever going to rise up and get rid of Saddam. The only people who might have are Iran and they are the last people we wanted to have the Iraqi oil fields.
The 2nd Amendment isn't meant, necessarily, for the populace to storm the Senate every single time they pass something that is disagreed with; you do its proponents a dishonour to paint them this way.
The second amendment now is just a way of making sure the american arms industry has a good market for its products at home. Any idea of it helping keep the US population safe has long since gone out the window, it is about the companies the donate to the NRA wanting to make as much money as possible and that means having as larger market for their products as possible.
Guns make individual people feel safer, they do not necessarily make society as a whole safer.
It made sense when it was enacted a few hundred years ago before massive but also densely populated cities existed but things have changed and will carry on changing. Most other countries have been able to let their gun laws evolve but in the US this is more difficult.
So people who are never going to rise up against the government however tyrannical it gets, have no need to hunt, live in a built up area and have no need to protect themselves from anyone apart from their neighbours and fellow citizens can get a gun. Maybe this would be ok if you could stop criminals getting them but that is impossible when they are so easy for normal people to buy. I can buy a gun, then just give it to a criminal with very little comeback but making a healthy markup. Changing this would be a damn good start but even that the NRA is against changing as it would mean less guns sold and that would affect those donations from companies making money from the civilian market.
I just recently graduated with a degree in mathematics, and a minor in computer science. I can program well, for the amount of experience I have, and I would love to get better. I, personally, think that one of the best ways that I could get better is to contribute to OSS projects. However, I can't lie, reading stories about the abusiveness of the community is a huge turn off. Now, I realize that I am probably not one of those people who 'should know better,' and I realize that really extraordinary outbursts are rare (which is why they get reported on, obviously), but I still have enormous trepidation about joining the OSS community. I feel I may have talent and ideas to contribute, but when I see stories about the way that people get treated when they make mistakes, it makes me want to avoid the whole thing. I wouldn't be doing it for money, I would be doing it for fun, and to learn. And as far as I'm concerned, if I'm going to be abused for making mistakes, I am not having fun, and I am likely not learning much either. Now, again, I understand that this is not usually the case as far as OSS development, but I'm just relaying my gut reaction to hearing about behavior like that.
Ok, your first problem is that you are going to need a job.
I hate to break it to you but sometimes managers can be a little caustic, they are generally very well paid but have to put up with quite a lot of stress. Sometimes, this makes them get angry with you if you are contributing to that stress or they feel you are. They should not, they know they should not but we are only human and sometimes we make mistakes. You are just going to have to get used to it.
I have worked in a few different roles (shop assistant, telesales, rigger, developer). The only job I had where people were always polite to each other was when working a rigger because you had an awful lot of very large, physically able men who would seriously make a mess of you if you were rude. In every other job I found managers sometimes get stressed and pissed off. They might try not to, but if you make mistakes you will sooner or later either get shouted at or you just get fired. People always make mistakes so sooner or later you will get shouted it, even if only because the underlying reason was the boss having a bad day.
The difference with the linux kernel is that every time this happens everyone hears about it. That should not stop you getting involved though because you are unlikely to have to deal with these people as you are just not good enough yet. In about 5 years you might be if you can get your million hours of C coding in but by then you might be more tolerant of people being caustic. You might not, but cross that bridge later. You might find you contribute to other open source projects where everyone is more polite, the kernel is one of the most stressful and complicated so not all OSS projects are like that.
Please don't take this too harshly and please don't think I am picking on you. I like you and you are a swell fellow and all. However, I feel it is necessary that I impress upon you that this isn't really a bug and having this trivial and non-broken thing filed as a bug has consumed a little bit of our time that we would rather not be wasting on things like this. Also, here is a pat on the back and an atta-boy so you don't feel I am being mean to you, okay?
If you ever spoke to me like that I would punch your lights out:)
Ironically his argument about fake politeness is EXACTLY what he's getting. People are pretending that his horrible behavior is acceptable just because they don't want to get on his bad side.
Not necessarily. He mentions in his reply that he does not hold grudges. Many people are like this, we forget about disagreements quickly and don't let them tarnish future communications.
It means that some people might be talking to him politely, because he is talking politely to you at that time because there is not disagreement over the current topic of conversation. How you communicated yesterday over a different topic is of no relevance. if you force it to still be relevant because you bear a grudge then that may be something you need to resolve, not them.
In my opinion after reading what she reacted to like this it is obvious that this is not a reaction to the actual email she replied to, as the email she replied to was obviously a joke about accidentally squashing someone.
It sounds like she replied to that but was actually taking issue with something else, probably the caustic nature of a bunch of male developers who all incredibly passionate about something that has very much become their baby. They no longer (and probably never have) viewed their work on the kernel as job. It is a hobby that they started getting paid for.
As to whether she is right I guess it depends. I know of many careers where rudeness is accepted, you just get used to being spoken to in that manner if you know their is no maliciousness behind it. I always remember by stepfather taking about journalism and how his editors spoke to him, they would still all socialise together though as soon as the broadcast went out and both parties always knew that there was no real ill meant, it was just one way of blowing off steam that was acceptable in their workplace.
Criticism of Gladwell is more extensive. [shameproject.com]
Lol, that site is about as far from impartial as you can get.
"No, no, no... They don't say his writing lacks facts to back it up. They only have issues with the fact that he's drawing conclusions out of his ass and making up a 'better' version of facts cause he didn't understand the original, boring ones."
Not sure where that came from, it is not a quote from my reply to you or wikipedia. You do not source it, so not really sure how it pertains to anything unless it is what you are saying, in which case I am just confused by the quotation marks around it.
And no... that's not the "main thrust of criticism". THAT is just the criticism aimed at his books.
That WAS the main thrust of the criticism on the wikipedia page linked to originally though.
Unlikely. Trade has to be a huge net benefit otherwise it doesn't get done because the companies that are involved in it have to cover huge costs (transport; multinational lawyers; dealing with multiple regulations; insurance; security people; translations; business travel for sales; moving support people etc.). From the point of view of the place that it's done in, all those costs are employed people.
I was not really thinking about jobs moving over seas, I was thinking more about them simply never happening. Once a company exists in a particular place, then you are right, there is no way they would move.
I was thinking more along the lines of if the US lacks STEM graduates then there will be less startups and also that if you are looking at getting a new project off the ground you would outsource it to a country where it could be done more quickly rather than waiting the time it would take to hire enough people. Assuming you already have enough people though then this is unlikely to be an issue as you say.
Zimmerman was NOT the aggressor. Walking on a sidewalk and following someone is NOT an act of aggression.
Are you sure? If you have ever lived in a slightly scary city environment and clocked that you were being followed this might not be your attitude.
For me though it always comes back to this: If a black guy had been walking round the streets of his local neighbourhood following 17 year old white kids and ended up shooting one who had no violent criminal past would he have been found guilty or innocent?
If the answer is that he would be more likely to be found guilty then there is a problem somewhere that needs solving, whatever the cause.
I can find you just as many articles saying you shouldn't go to wikipedia looking for factual information either:)
I think it is worth noting though that the main thrust of criticism is not that Gladwell's writing lacks facts, it is instead that they take issue with how he draws conclusions and oversimplification.
That is an oft used criticism though from academics who have a tendency to other non-academics dumbing down their fields for public consumption. The problem is though that someone needs to do this as academics do not work in an ivory tower, their work often impacts on society as a whole so there needs to be some attempt at translating it into words that society as a whole can actually understand. Some academics can put things across in plain english with plenty of nice easy analogies, some are not interested in trying or are unable to. I think Gladwell is fairly good at making modern philosophical topics more accessible, that can only be a good thing even if he does do it in an imperfect manner.
Slashdot Mirror
As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery.
In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring responded that "it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system
If he's in the Ecuadorian Embassy, then the Swedes have no entry rights unless granted to them by the Ecuadorian ambassador. Therefore, it's not Swedish law preventing them from interrogating/questioning Assange, but the legal right of the Ecuadorian government to prevent him from being questioned on their sovereign property.
If they want to talk to him, they only need to ask and I have no doubt it would be granted.
The problem is that this would be an utter waste of time as anyone who had ever been through a police interview would tell you since the Assange would be free to terminate the interview at will by simply walking out of the room where the prosecutors could not follow.
Also, anything they mention in the interview would not help their cause one bit. Either they would make it obvious that the charges against him are utter drivel that will not stand up in court by having no worthwhile evidence to put on the table in which case he can be fairly sure that the idea of him being sent onwards to the US to be thrown in a supermax next to Mr Manning is really on the cards or they would have a tons of evidence that they put to him that makes him realise he really does stand a chance of being convicted of some sort of statutory rape charge and thrown in jail in Sweden then deported as an undesirable upon his release.
Obviously the flight back to Oz would have to stop in the US to refuel along the way :)
PS - I know he has lost his Oz citizenship but if Sweden were deporting him as a convicted criminal I reckon they would send him there anyway then just let the US intercept him enroute.
The rule (at least in the US) is very simple: You are not required, nor should you allow any law enforcement officer into your home or business without a search warrant.
What happens if the police kick shit out of you in your own home for 8 hours with the FBI who shoot you while you are being interviewed?
What the constitution states seems to be pretty irrelevant in light of the shooting of Ibragim Todashev. It seems plausible that the officers in question just decided to execute him as they could not prove anything or because they were waterboarding him in his kitchen sink and he accidentally drowned.
If they can get away with murder, they can probably get away with the odd illegal search.
Why should the company have to regain any trust anyway?
it needs to regain my trust because currently i dont' trust it to keep my data confidential. instead of "teh cloudz" I'll use desktop services where I own my data. because I don't trust goog.
Do you trust anyone else not to share your data with the NSA? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
Ever try to edit a hosts file in Win7 on an administrator account, and then still had to reopen the file running AS administrator to accomplish it, making sure to keep your changes available to paste back in? It's nonsense.
No, its not. If you could edit the hosts file programmatically without jumping through this many hoops then you could force entries into the hosts file that redirected traffic to your bank to a different server.
Just the administrator account should be enough, but too many people use administrator accounts for day to day stuff just so they can install software. On linux you end up needing to put in the root password or use sudo for tons of stuff, windows have tried to avoid this but some things like editing the hosts file are such dangerous edge cases compared to what most users do that they need to be protected differently.
To be honest, there is a strong argument that you should NEVER edit your hosts file on a windows machine (ok, I admit I do not always follow this advice). If you want to do crap like that maybe you should run a local DNS server just so you know what you are doing, especially if you run a linux server on your network since DNSMasq is so easy to use. It might still involve editing a hosts file, but at least it is a hosts file on a separate server and becomes the central point for all local DNS changes you make. Using DNSmasq also lets you test anything you are testing on a number of devices on your private network without having to keep track of hosts file entries on each device.
Seriously, DNSMasq is a much better shout for most stuff like this if you need to do it regularly.
I love how this is an article about how goog is increasing security, yet 95% of the posts are about NSA snooping. This is the flip side of the PRISM stuff - a company will never be able to prove that NSA is NOT snooping. Once the public loses faith, it will be really hard for a company to regain it. maybe this has already happened...
Why should the company have to regain any trust anyway? The fact is the US government is currently mandating that they do all of this crap and issuing them with gag orders so Google can't tell anyone.
The only way Google can get out of this is relocate their HQ to russia, exactly where the Brin family escaped from. Even if they did this it would probably be no better as Putin is not exactly Mr Privacy.
The truth is that companies cannot do a damn thing providing congress and the supreme court keeps saying this stuff is all fine and dandy. The US Military and spy agencies calls the shots since 9 - 11. Sometimes I often wonder if they just sat back and watched it happen knowing it would strengthen their hand for decades.
I don't want a BT-like situation where the government entity can dictate policy to private companies when it's unpopular and unconstitutional (ie ban on porn).
I am not sure you have any clue what your talking about here.
The UK government can dictate policy to BT because they can pass laws that BT (like any other company doing business within our shores) has to follow and we do not have a list of constitutional rights quite like you do in the US. There are cases when UK laws are shot down by higher powers like the EU or due to us signing treaties on human rights but nobody has yet taken this to our supreme court to decide whether the right to watch violent rape porn is actually included in our basic human rights. I say violent rape porn because that is all the UK government is currently looking to ban and it is currently a long way from being law.
They are also looking at making all ISP's (including ones that are not BT like Virgin) also provide an opt in / opt out to other porn though at the same time but then will just be a case of you telling your ISP you want to watch porn on the net and then them letting you. I am not saying this is not a crap idea or doomed to failure, but I do not think it is quite the same as a ban on all porn. I actually think it is doomed to failure as the filter will have so many false positives that most people have to opt in just so they can browse wikipedia even if it does become law a few years down the line.
Currently though we are still at the point of an unpopular prime minister in a weak coalition government that barely holds a majority moaning about something that he knows will be popular with his own parties supporters in order to distract from the shit storm he is currently trying to keep quiet about as a result of his party being openly bought by various lobbyists from the cigarette and alcohol industries. He knew that his recent climb down on cigarette packets having to be plain was going to be unpopular with parents, so tried to come up with something else that would win him a few votes back or at least distract them.
No need for U.S. or international pressure. Finland is subject of multiple so called "intelectual property" agreements, which require lot of rules in question to be implemented in national law. And you can't overrule it - sorry, that's why they went "IP trade agreements" in first place.
Finland could ignore these treaties. America would go to the WTO crying foul, the dispute settlement body would probably agree, then finland would have to either repeal the relevant law or suffer the consequences. In this case the most likely consequence would be the US getting to take retaliatory measures of some kind against Finland, either an import tariff on Finnish goods or maybe even getting to crap all over finnish copyright.
This might be just what we need to get rid of Linus as he loses the copyright on linux to some huge american corporation (obviously this bit is a joke).
The submitter is looking for a code-based solution to a sociological/psychological problem, and it's just not going to be effective.
The real solution is to educate and train your users so they don't fall prey to these sorts of attacks. I know a lot of IT people aren't comfortable dealing with people, and I know it takes quite a bit of time and doesn't look as snazzy on your résumé - but, really, it's the best long-term approach.
Some people are just too stupid to train in this manner. This is especially true if you are a system admin for an office that employs dolly bird PA's just to make tea and look pretty on the front desk when a client comes to visit.
Blokes can be just as stupid too though, I had to clear up a PC after one of our support team clicked on one of these BS fishing emails as he installed some software that "cleaned" his Windows XP PC. He just has an inability to pay attention to what he is doing. He will most likely spend his entire like manning a helpdesk phone line helping people allow popups (We have to use them as many elearning courses are designed to only work in a popup and we host other peoples courseware).
Often these people are employed in dead end jobs earning no money so training them to take their head out of their arse is like trying to get blood out of a stone. Hiring someone with a brain would cost more and they might not need it for the job they have to do anyway.
Not that any form of network security for this is a magic bullet either. Unfortunately there is no one solution. All you can do is try and block as much as possible at the email gateway via a decent spam filter and make sure people only have the minimum admin rights on the PC's that they need to do their job. The final layer of protection though is making sure you have a damn good disaster recovery policy to allow you to recover a machine from nightly backups easily and can also rollback to previous days until you get a clean image.
The best way to protect your computer from malicious Javascript embedded within a PDF is to not install Adobe Reader. If you cannot open the file, your computer cannot be infected.
In the real world that is simply not an option. I have to be able to view PDF's on my work PC.
This original question seemed to be posed by someone wanting to protect a network, in that case he definitely cannot mandate no PDF's. The trick to being a good admin is doing your best without getting in peoples way. Blocking all PDF's at the mail server would definately get in peoples way.
Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.
What about the victims right to privacy? Ok, they had a right to life that was violated by their killer but didn't they also have a right to privacy? What if the victim has no clothes on when they are killed should it still be ok to publish the video of their killing?
I actually think this is somewhat similar to child porn in that it should be illegal not just to make snuff movies, but also just to be in possession of one. This would make online distribution a definite no-no.
The music inductry should realize that it's these younger people that are buying most of the music, especially the latest pop hits, and should price accordingly.
Why?
Selling 50,000,000 copies for $1 generates the same turnover as selling 100,000,000 for 50c. The difference is that processing 50,000,000 transactions is cheaper than processing 100,000,000 so they make more profit by selling half as many at twice the price. These are just figures plucked out of the air but they are designed to illustrate how choosing a higher price point can make you more money even though less people can afford to pay it.
Since I am not a record company accountant I cannot be 100% sure which way they make more money, but I reckon they probably choose to keep prices high for a reason.
$12/hr is no way to go through life, son.
Then again, the economy sucks eggs, so take what you can get. Trade up as soon as you can and don't worry about the company you're leaving.
I hadn't checked in a while my hourly rate as I have been salaried for the past decade so was plucking figures out of thin air. After having worked it out it seems more like 2 minutes to earn each dollar.
So what's your explanation for the falling numbers of people who are willing to pay for the "theater experience"?
Home TV screens being bigger mainly.
Also, there are now other forms of entertainment to take into account too like computer games.
I think if you take the amount spent on movies, tv, music and games all together you will find that it has not change much over the past few years. It might have gone down a little actually but that is probably just due to the means of delivery getting cheaper so the costs to and user going down as well when you take inflation into account. I think if you compare the cost of an album in the shops now to in the 60's the price has actually fallen.
The big change though is that piracy has become easier from a technical perspective with the advent of digital recordings so people who refuse to pay for their entertainment find it easier. Also, there is the notion that nothing is lost by that extra copy somehow making it acceptable.
1$ a song is ridiculous.
Are you sure? I earn $1 in about 5 minutes so it seems fair to pay that to me, especially for the amount of time and effort someone has to put in to create a song that I like. The problem is that to most young people (who engage in most piracy) that 1$ is worth far more since they earn less. A cup of coffee that last about 5 minutes costs twice that and can't be consumed twice.
When I was a kid I would go round gathering up supermarket trolleys to return that people had walked off and left the coin deposit in. I could not understand why the hell anybody did this, now I can. If I lose $10 I am slightly annoyed but nothing more, to really piss me off I would have to lose a few hundred. If get too drunk and miss the last train home I just get a cab all the way, that costs about $80.
This is the real problem, the vast gap in earnings between those of us who have a real career type job and the low wage McJobs that are open to young people. That vast gap in ability to earn money means that the price points chosen for lots of products like DVD's and music now are very high from young peoples point of view. Young professionals are often the target market for music and entertainment now, and that means if you are still a student the prices chosen seem obscene.
That accounts for much of President Obama's actions in the war against al Qaida.
What war against al Qaida? You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion?
You mean the lost war against the Taliban, US allies against Russia, who were no threat against the US, and held no grudge until being invaded?
8000 American troops dead, >600,000 Iraqi excess deaths, and worldwide loss of respect. Beats "negligence or inaction" eh?
Yes but it did enable Iraqi oil to be sold on the open market again, unlike before when it was blackmarket sale only. It could have gone on like that for decades too as no fucker in Iraq was ever going to rise up and get rid of Saddam. The only people who might have are Iran and they are the last people we wanted to have the Iraqi oil fields.
The 2nd Amendment isn't meant, necessarily, for the populace to storm the Senate every single time they pass something that is disagreed with; you do its proponents a dishonour to paint them this way.
The second amendment now is just a way of making sure the american arms industry has a good market for its products at home. Any idea of it helping keep the US population safe has long since gone out the window, it is about the companies the donate to the NRA wanting to make as much money as possible and that means having as larger market for their products as possible.
Guns make individual people feel safer, they do not necessarily make society as a whole safer.
It made sense when it was enacted a few hundred years ago before massive but also densely populated cities existed but things have changed and will carry on changing. Most other countries have been able to let their gun laws evolve but in the US this is more difficult.
So people who are never going to rise up against the government however tyrannical it gets, have no need to hunt, live in a built up area and have no need to protect themselves from anyone apart from their neighbours and fellow citizens can get a gun. Maybe this would be ok if you could stop criminals getting them but that is impossible when they are so easy for normal people to buy. I can buy a gun, then just give it to a criminal with very little comeback but making a healthy markup. Changing this would be a damn good start but even that the NRA is against changing as it would mean less guns sold and that would affect those donations from companies making money from the civilian market.
That's called caricaturing. Look it up, then look at the quote above in context of the previous post.
I understand what caricaturing is, I do not understand why the hell you put it in quotation marks if it was not a quotation.
I just recently graduated with a degree in mathematics, and a minor in computer science. I can program well, for the amount of experience I have, and I would love to get better. I, personally, think that one of the best ways that I could get better is to contribute to OSS projects. However, I can't lie, reading stories about the abusiveness of the community is a huge turn off. Now, I realize that I am probably not one of those people who 'should know better,' and I realize that really extraordinary outbursts are rare (which is why they get reported on, obviously), but I still have enormous trepidation about joining the OSS community. I feel I may have talent and ideas to contribute, but when I see stories about the way that people get treated when they make mistakes, it makes me want to avoid the whole thing. I wouldn't be doing it for money, I would be doing it for fun, and to learn. And as far as I'm concerned, if I'm going to be abused for making mistakes, I am not having fun, and I am likely not learning much either. Now, again, I understand that this is not usually the case as far as OSS development, but I'm just relaying my gut reaction to hearing about behavior like that.
Ok, your first problem is that you are going to need a job.
I hate to break it to you but sometimes managers can be a little caustic, they are generally very well paid but have to put up with quite a lot of stress. Sometimes, this makes them get angry with you if you are contributing to that stress or they feel you are. They should not, they know they should not but we are only human and sometimes we make mistakes. You are just going to have to get used to it.
I have worked in a few different roles (shop assistant, telesales, rigger, developer). The only job I had where people were always polite to each other was when working a rigger because you had an awful lot of very large, physically able men who would seriously make a mess of you if you were rude. In every other job I found managers sometimes get stressed and pissed off. They might try not to, but if you make mistakes you will sooner or later either get shouted at or you just get fired. People always make mistakes so sooner or later you will get shouted it, even if only because the underlying reason was the boss having a bad day.
The difference with the linux kernel is that every time this happens everyone hears about it. That should not stop you getting involved though because you are unlikely to have to deal with these people as you are just not good enough yet. In about 5 years you might be if you can get your million hours of C coding in but by then you might be more tolerant of people being caustic. You might not, but cross that bridge later. You might find you contribute to other open source projects where everyone is more polite, the kernel is one of the most stressful and complicated so not all OSS projects are like that.
Please don't take this too harshly and please don't think I am picking on you. I like you and you are a swell fellow and all. However, I feel it is necessary that I impress upon you that this isn't really a bug and having this trivial and non-broken thing filed as a bug has consumed a little bit of our time that we would rather not be wasting on things like this. Also, here is a pat on the back and an atta-boy so you don't feel I am being mean to you, okay?
If you ever spoke to me like that I would punch your lights out :)
Ironically his argument about fake politeness is EXACTLY what he's getting. People are pretending that his horrible behavior is acceptable just because they don't want to get on his bad side.
Not necessarily. He mentions in his reply that he does not hold grudges. Many people are like this, we forget about disagreements quickly and don't let them tarnish future communications.
It means that some people might be talking to him politely, because he is talking politely to you at that time because there is not disagreement over the current topic of conversation. How you communicated yesterday over a different topic is of no relevance. if you force it to still be relevant because you bear a grudge then that may be something you need to resolve, not them.
In my opinion after reading what she reacted to like this it is obvious that this is not a reaction to the actual email she replied to, as the email she replied to was obviously a joke about accidentally squashing someone.
It sounds like she replied to that but was actually taking issue with something else, probably the caustic nature of a bunch of male developers who all incredibly passionate about something that has very much become their baby. They no longer (and probably never have) viewed their work on the kernel as job. It is a hobby that they started getting paid for.
As to whether she is right I guess it depends. I know of many careers where rudeness is accepted, you just get used to being spoken to in that manner if you know their is no maliciousness behind it. I always remember by stepfather taking about journalism and how his editors spoke to him, they would still all socialise together though as soon as the broadcast went out and both parties always knew that there was no real ill meant, it was just one way of blowing off steam that was acceptable in their workplace.
Criticism of Gladwell is more extensive. [shameproject.com]
Lol, that site is about as far from impartial as you can get.
"No, no, no... They don't say his writing lacks facts to back it up. They only have issues with the fact that he's drawing conclusions out of his ass and making up a 'better' version of facts cause he didn't understand the original, boring ones."
Not sure where that came from, it is not a quote from my reply to you or wikipedia. You do not source it, so not really sure how it pertains to anything unless it is what you are saying, in which case I am just confused by the quotation marks around it.
And no... that's not the "main thrust of criticism". THAT is just the criticism aimed at his books.
That WAS the main thrust of the criticism on the wikipedia page linked to originally though.
Unlikely. Trade has to be a huge net benefit otherwise it doesn't get done because the companies that are involved in it have to cover huge costs (transport; multinational lawyers; dealing with multiple regulations; insurance; security people; translations; business travel for sales; moving support people etc.). From the point of view of the place that it's done in, all those costs are employed people.
I was not really thinking about jobs moving over seas, I was thinking more about them simply never happening. Once a company exists in a particular place, then you are right, there is no way they would move.
I was thinking more along the lines of if the US lacks STEM graduates then there will be less startups and also that if you are looking at getting a new project off the ground you would outsource it to a country where it could be done more quickly rather than waiting the time it would take to hire enough people. Assuming you already have enough people though then this is unlikely to be an issue as you say.
Zimmerman was NOT the aggressor. Walking on a sidewalk and following someone is NOT an act of aggression.
Are you sure? If you have ever lived in a slightly scary city environment and clocked that you were being followed this might not be your attitude.
For me though it always comes back to this: If a black guy had been walking round the streets of his local neighbourhood following 17 year old white kids and ended up shooting one who had no violent criminal past would he have been found guilty or innocent?
If the answer is that he would be more likely to be found guilty then there is a problem somewhere that needs solving, whatever the cause.
less foreigners == more american STEMs getting hired?
Or the work just gets done overseas. It is probably roughly 50 / 50.
He's charismatic and everything but I wouldn't read Malcolm Gladwell if I were looking for factual information.
I can find you just as many articles saying you shouldn't go to wikipedia looking for factual information either :)
I think it is worth noting though that the main thrust of criticism is not that Gladwell's writing lacks facts, it is instead that they take issue with how he draws conclusions and oversimplification.
That is an oft used criticism though from academics who have a tendency to other non-academics dumbing down their fields for public consumption. The problem is though that someone needs to do this as academics do not work in an ivory tower, their work often impacts on society as a whole so there needs to be some attempt at translating it into words that society as a whole can actually understand. Some academics can put things across in plain english with plenty of nice easy analogies, some are not interested in trying or are unable to. I think Gladwell is fairly good at making modern philosophical topics more accessible, that can only be a good thing even if he does do it in an imperfect manner.