>*most people like to get through their workday without having to deal with a bunch of skeevy guys who believe wagging their dicks all over is the height of sophisticated masculine behavior.*//
Most [Western] countries have laws that make exposing your genitals to anyone at work, out of context, unlawful. In other countries you'd probably just be laughed at and fired. Both reasonable responses IMO.
In your own time however, most democratic countries will preserve your right to dance around and wave your genitals in private with like minded individuals no matter who thinks you're immature or "skeevy" [is that like slimy?].
Certain groups of men, and women, have different mores. What gives you the right to set the public standard of behaviour for everyone?
>*the idea of a software repository, and open source projects, is that anyone can contribute*//
So because of this one project suddenly the whole repo is unusable or the whole idea of OSS is untenable?? Like because one guy flicked a booger in a restaurant now no one in the world can eat at a restaurant - the whole concept of restaurants is tainted and all chefs must commit seppuku?
On a wider view it could well be argued that you're simply trying to deny something inherent to the character of many males. Personally I'm not in to jokes about genitalia, and toilet humour but it seems pretty widespread amongst men and not entirely uncommon amongst women. So do we stop men being men?
Does this mean that women in majority female employment have to stop discussing soap operas and fashion - stereotypically female mores. If not why not, many men find them toxic and unhelpful and that a pre-occupation with such things excludes them.
I choose making strict - democratically agreed - boundaries within working environments, assessing work on the merit of the work, and leaving people who want to make adolescent jokes to do so as they please so long as they don't do it during work and it doesn't affect their performance.
In defence of Latin you can probably read it on monuments, tombs, and in old buildings in every major city in Europe; it provides loan words and base words for most European languages; it's useful for lawyers and historians at least; you can look intelligent by making quotes in Latin./Ipsa scientia potestas est/.;0)>
>He never actually said he wanted to ban encrpytion. That was the tech media taking some vague statements and running with it. >He said that he wanted to make sure that the security services could read any communication.
So he doesn't want to ban encryption only useful, working encryption? Not sure that really changes anything.
Logically your alternative doesn't work - if I die and the password dies with me then SS can't read the communication. Even just making it a crime not to assist with decryption doesn't make the SS able to read communications. It can't be done without breaking privacy - it's an either-or; either we have private communications or SS can read any communications they wish (ie all communication's privacy can be compromised).
>Banning TOR is not technologically impossible, it is quite easy to do.//
Go on?
Suppose I create an SSH tunnel or use a VPN to a machine that I run TOR on - you're going to enforce a ban on that and it's "quite easy". Pray tell how?
Suppose you're going to be super-naive about it and just block TOR traffic at the ISP user level - it's encrypted and can be passed on common ports like 443 - how do you stop that traffic?
>reporting vulnerabilities doesn't get you put in Jail, however manipulating sites without permission to look for them does.//
Except that in this case the report is evidence of having "manipulated" the site "without permission" *.
* web accessible documents have an assumed permission IMO; the removal of permission is performed by making the page only accessible with a password or similar auth.
If the law sees it that way then you need to start selling to businesses and include small print that says "by accepting these goods you sign over all property, goods, chattels and monies under your or the accepting company's ownership, stewardship or control to us without let or hindrance from the date and time noted".
The court then to remain consistent would need to ensure that this small print is held to be equally valid...
>But I worked for a company that got $88,000 in fines in a single month.//
And still found it profitable to harass people by phone? Usually such fines are miniscule compared to the companies operating funds and so just get absorbed in to the costs of doing business rather than altering the company's behaviour.
If there was really a prohibition against "creating visual depictions of figures" then there would be no TV or photography in use by muslims. Writing certain languages would be right out too, anything with characters based on pictograms of [human] figures.
But there isn't, it's a very new thing. IMO it's been brought in as an excuse to justify violence that would be otherwise so abhorrent to most people who call themselves muslims that they'd probably risk death in favour of apostasy. If however those who want to control the muslim population feign offense and cry that they're only trying to protect Islam then they can win over "cultural" muslims.
>*all of which were surrounded by religious fervour.*//
That's absolute crap. The IRA weren't battling to spread Christianity in any way shape or form; some of them may have been Christians however. The Provisional IRA are probably the group most associated with terrorist activity (at least in my lifetime), the Manchester Bombings are probably the event that I most remember from "the troubles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
If you can find any reference to them considering they were waging a war to promote Christianity I'd be very interested; they're mostly associated with Marxism from what I can tell. Here's the Papal view on what you're calling Catholic terrorism (if it contradicts the pope it ain't [Roman] Catholic):
>'9. Secondly, peace cannot be established by violence, peace can never flourish in a climate of terror, intimidation and death. It is Jesus himself who said : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Mt 26:52). This is the word of God, and it commands this generation of violent men to desist from hatred and violence and to repent.'
>'I join my voice today to the voice of Paul VI and my other predecessors, to the voices of your religious leaders, to the voices of all men and women of reason, and I proclaim, with the conviction of my faith in Christ and with an awareness of my mission, that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society. I pray with you that the moral sense and Christian conviction of Irish men and women may never become obscured and blunted by the lie of violence, that nobody may ever call murder by any other name than murder, that the spiral of violence may never be given the distinction of unavoidable logic or necessary retaliation. Let us remember that the word remains for ever : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword". '
He quotes Romans 1 though... clearly not reading the context nor understanding in the least the point the Apostle Paul is making... (see my other reply to the same post).
The New Living Translation at Romans 1:32 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A24-32&version=NIV;NASB;MSG;NLT) says "They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." which is quite different to your quote. The NLT is a non-direct translation, one of the looser ones, written in more modern language. You should always use several translations if you're not going to study in depth the original texts.
You also break at 1:32, in the original there was no break there the following point is key, Paul writes that we shouldn't be so quick to judge those we perceive as offending God as we too are really amongst that number - nonetheless God will judge all mercifully and according to the good they have done. See Romans 2, https://www.biblegateway.com/p....
However you do get to the heart of Jesus message here - his message is that whilst we all have sinned, we all have done things that offend God's order and all are worthy to die and so cease to be INSTEAD Jesus has sacrificed himself and paid the price that we all can turn from sin and be saved through him, restoring our relationship with God, and ultimately being with God for eternity in heaven.
Presumably your intention was to show that Christianity allows killing, yet none of your citations relate bar one and that one goes quite contrary to your apparent position.
Whilst I know the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that for a bricks-and-mortar store the invitation to treat doesn't need to be honoured until the money has been accepted for the goods, I'm wondering for online transactions at what point the implicit contract is "signed". Does the retailer sign the "contract" when they take payment, when they deliver, what?
>"someone who appears in media (any form, but particularly film/video) has the right to object if their performance is distorted"//
I suspect you're misunderstanding. If a film portrays a real person falsely then the person has a libel claim (under eg UK law). If an actor plays a role and that role demonstrates that the character is a pathological beacon of hatred, a sadistic coward or whatever, then the actor isn't being misrepresented as they are merely playing a role, no natural person is being unfairly treated only a [fictional/historic] character is being [unfairly] libelled. There is nothing to be done about that, you can't injure/libel a fiction.
An actor has as much say in the final form of the film as they put in their contract.
The actress seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of her vocation. An actress speaking lines is playing a part, it is not her that speaks, it is her character. If the characters comments are altered by playwrights/directors/whoever then over-dubbing can be required.
This all seems to be a construction to avoid idiot Islamic adherents, who make the same misunderstanding, causing people [physical] harm. It's definitely nothing to do with copyright; nor is it defamation of the actresses own character as she is not in the movie, she plays the part of someone who is in it.
Having just looked at the site I can't really believe this. It has the same visual appearance (like Minecraft to Infiniminer but more so), the same tools in one screenshot, the same placement of the tools. From descriptions it appears to have the same general game mechanics. It doesn't have to be an exact replica to be a "clone" in game terms IMO.
Well FWIW you do in part pay for the BBC - they receive a sizeable stipend from general taxation in addition to the monies raised through the license fee.
Slashdot Mirror
Link to the videos?
>To expect someone to make lame dick and c*nt jokes in source code? //
Yeah, who'd expect to find something that doesn't meet with their own standards of decency on the internet of all places ...
>*most people like to get through their workday without having to deal with a bunch of skeevy guys who believe wagging their dicks all over is the height of sophisticated masculine behavior.* //
Most [Western] countries have laws that make exposing your genitals to anyone at work, out of context, unlawful. In other countries you'd probably just be laughed at and fired. Both reasonable responses IMO.
In your own time however, most democratic countries will preserve your right to dance around and wave your genitals in private with like minded individuals no matter who thinks you're immature or "skeevy" [is that like slimy?].
Certain groups of men, and women, have different mores. What gives you the right to set the public standard of behaviour for everyone?
Can I maybe suggest that either you don't contribute to this project then or if you choose to that you don't put it on your CV?
There, problem solved.
Some people don't care what other people's definition of "professional" is.
>*the idea of a software repository, and open source projects, is that anyone can contribute* //
So because of this one project suddenly the whole repo is unusable or the whole idea of OSS is untenable?? Like because one guy flicked a booger in a restaurant now no one in the world can eat at a restaurant - the whole concept of restaurants is tainted and all chefs must commit seppuku?
On a wider view it could well be argued that you're simply trying to deny something inherent to the character of many males. Personally I'm not in to jokes about genitalia, and toilet humour but it seems pretty widespread amongst men and not entirely uncommon amongst women. So do we stop men being men?
Does this mean that women in majority female employment have to stop discussing soap operas and fashion - stereotypically female mores. If not why not, many men find them toxic and unhelpful and that a pre-occupation with such things excludes them.
I choose making strict - democratically agreed - boundaries within working environments, assessing work on the merit of the work, and leaving people who want to make adolescent jokes to do so as they please so long as they don't do it during work and it doesn't affect their performance.
In defence of Latin you can probably read it on monuments, tombs, and in old buildings in every major city in Europe; it provides loan words and base words for most European languages; it's useful for lawyers and historians at least; you can look intelligent by making quotes in Latin. /Ipsa scientia potestas est/. ;0)>
>He never actually said he wanted to ban encrpytion. That was the tech media taking some vague statements and running with it.
>He said that he wanted to make sure that the security services could read any communication.
So he doesn't want to ban encryption only useful, working encryption? Not sure that really changes anything.
Logically your alternative doesn't work - if I die and the password dies with me then SS can't read the communication. Even just making it a crime not to assist with decryption doesn't make the SS able to read communications. It can't be done without breaking privacy - it's an either-or; either we have private communications or SS can read any communications they wish (ie all communication's privacy can be compromised).
>Banning TOR is not technologically impossible, it is quite easy to do. //
Go on?
Suppose I create an SSH tunnel or use a VPN to a machine that I run TOR on - you're going to enforce a ban on that and it's "quite easy". Pray tell how?
Suppose you're going to be super-naive about it and just block TOR traffic at the ISP user level - it's encrypted and can be passed on common ports like 443 - how do you stop that traffic?
>reporting vulnerabilities doesn't get you put in Jail, however manipulating sites without permission to look for them does. //
Except that in this case the report is evidence of having "manipulated" the site "without permission" *.
* web accessible documents have an assumed permission IMO; the removal of permission is performed by making the page only accessible with a password or similar auth.
If the law sees it that way then you need to start selling to businesses and include small print that says "by accepting these goods you sign over all property, goods, chattels and monies under your or the accepting company's ownership, stewardship or control to us without let or hindrance from the date and time noted".
The court then to remain consistent would need to ensure that this small print is held to be equally valid ...
>I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure.
People dying through poverty brought on by the actions of super-rich isn't a failure in your model of capitalism?
>But I worked for a company that got $88,000 in fines in a single month. //
And still found it profitable to harass people by phone? Usually such fines are miniscule compared to the companies operating funds and so just get absorbed in to the costs of doing business rather than altering the company's behaviour.
If there was really a prohibition against "creating visual depictions of figures" then there would be no TV or photography in use by muslims. Writing certain languages would be right out too, anything with characters based on pictograms of [human] figures.
But there isn't, it's a very new thing. IMO it's been brought in as an excuse to justify violence that would be otherwise so abhorrent to most people who call themselves muslims that they'd probably risk death in favour of apostasy. If however those who want to control the muslim population feign offense and cry that they're only trying to protect Islam then they can win over "cultural" muslims.
>*all of which were surrounded by religious fervour.* //
That's absolute crap. The IRA weren't battling to spread Christianity in any way shape or form; some of them may have been Christians however. The Provisional IRA are probably the group most associated with terrorist activity (at least in my lifetime), the Manchester Bombings are probably the event that I most remember from "the troubles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
If you can find any reference to them considering they were waging a war to promote Christianity I'd be very interested; they're mostly associated with Marxism from what I can tell. Here's the Papal view on what you're calling Catholic terrorism (if it contradicts the pope it ain't [Roman] Catholic):
>'9. Secondly, peace cannot be established by violence, peace can never flourish in a climate of terror, intimidation and death. It is Jesus himself who said : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Mt 26 :52). This is the word of God, and it commands this generation of violent men to desist from hatred and violence and to repent.'
>'I join my voice today to the voice of Paul VI and my other predecessors, to the voices of your religious leaders, to the voices of all men and women of reason, and I proclaim, with the conviction of my faith in Christ and with an awareness of my mission, that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society. I pray with you that the moral sense and Christian conviction of Irish men and women may never become obscured and blunted by the lie of violence, that nobody may ever call murder by any other name than murder, that the spiral of violence may never be given the distinction of unavoidable logic or necessary retaliation. Let us remember that the word remains for ever : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword". '
(Pope John Paul II, 1979 visit to Ireland, http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat...)
He quotes Romans 1 though ... clearly not reading the context nor understanding in the least the point the Apostle Paul is making ... (see my other reply to the same post).
The New Living Translation at Romans 1:32 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A24-32&version=NIV;NASB;MSG;NLT) says "They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." which is quite different to your quote. The NLT is a non-direct translation, one of the looser ones, written in more modern language. You should always use several translations if you're not going to study in depth the original texts.
You also break at 1:32, in the original there was no break there the following point is key, Paul writes that we shouldn't be so quick to judge those we perceive as offending God as we too are really amongst that number - nonetheless God will judge all mercifully and according to the good they have done. See Romans 2, https://www.biblegateway.com/p....
However you do get to the heart of Jesus message here - his message is that whilst we all have sinned, we all have done things that offend God's order and all are worthy to die and so cease to be INSTEAD Jesus has sacrificed himself and paid the price that we all can turn from sin and be saved through him, restoring our relationship with God, and ultimately being with God for eternity in heaven.
Presumably your intention was to show that Christianity allows killing, yet none of your citations relate bar one and that one goes quite contrary to your apparent position.
Whilst I know the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that for a bricks-and-mortar store the invitation to treat doesn't need to be honoured until the money has been accepted for the goods, I'm wondering for online transactions at what point the implicit contract is "signed". Does the retailer sign the "contract" when they take payment, when they deliver, what?
>"someone who appears in media (any form, but particularly film/video) has the right to object if their performance is distorted" //
I suspect you're misunderstanding. If a film portrays a real person falsely then the person has a libel claim (under eg UK law). If an actor plays a role and that role demonstrates that the character is a pathological beacon of hatred, a sadistic coward or whatever, then the actor isn't being misrepresented as they are merely playing a role, no natural person is being unfairly treated only a [fictional/historic] character is being [unfairly] libelled. There is nothing to be done about that, you can't injure/libel a fiction.
An actor has as much say in the final form of the film as they put in their contract.
>" as if she had spoken them" //
The actress seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of her vocation. An actress speaking lines is playing a part, it is not her that speaks, it is her character. If the characters comments are altered by playwrights/directors/whoever then over-dubbing can be required.
This all seems to be a construction to avoid idiot Islamic adherents, who make the same misunderstanding, causing people [physical] harm. It's definitely nothing to do with copyright; nor is it defamation of the actresses own character as she is not in the movie, she plays the part of someone who is in it.
Looks like someone is trying to push the price of bitcoin down again.
I should say .. that's not a bad thing to me. I'll be trying it out for sure.
>it's not supposed to be a Minecraft clone
Having just looked at the site I can't really believe this. It has the same visual appearance (like Minecraft to Infiniminer but more so), the same tools in one screenshot, the same placement of the tools. From descriptions it appears to have the same general game mechanics. It doesn't have to be an exact replica to be a "clone" in game terms IMO.
Well FWIW you do in part pay for the BBC - they receive a sizeable stipend from general taxation in addition to the monies raised through the license fee.
Only an injust system would charge a successful defendant costs rather than make an award of [reasonable] costs against the plaintiff. Ridiculous.
Climate change study?