This as it stands it pretty rudimentary, but it could be the first step in allowing us to program cells in a much more defined and complex way than anything we can do yet.
It's all relative, my 1970's HS biology teacher would have viewed this as "Star Trek" science. This level of detailed understanding would have made his jaw drop in awe, as it did mine.:).
A software release isn't truly trustworthy until actual users test it.
Of course not, that's why getting a serious software project from "it builds" to "it's on its way to Mars" takes such a long time, however you will never get there if you don't have a repeatable build process. The production version is never "the latest build", it's buildXYZ that the testers have been kicking for days/weeks/months, depending how much your willing to spend on quality. However I agree that ultimately "the proof is in the pudding" and I note that about half the missions sent to Mars either failed to get past the Moon, failed to find Mars, or failed to apply the brakes before attempting to land.
If volatility is going up as the project/product matures then your doing it wrong.;)
Albert hit the religion nail on the head in the last paragraph of his famous speech "My credo", which he gave to the German League of Human Rights in late 1932.
My Credo
It is a special blessing to belong among those who can and may devote their best energies to the contemplation and exploration of objective and timeless things. How happy and grateful I am for having been granted this blessing, which bestows upon one a large measure of independence from one's personal fate and from the attitude of one's contemporaries. Yet this independence must not inure us to the awareness of the duties that constantly bind us to the past, present and future of humankind at large.
Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here, involuntarily and uninvited, for a short stay, without knowing the why and the wherefore. In our daily lives we feel only that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own.
I am often troubled by the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings, and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them.
I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.
I have never coveted affluence and luxury and even despise them a good deal. My passion for social justice has often brought me into conflict with people, as has my aversion to any obligation and dependence I did not regard as absolutely necessary.
I have a high regard for the individual and an insuperable distaste for violence and fanaticism. All these motives have made me a passionate pacifist and antimilitarist. I am against any chauvinism, even in the guise of mere patriotism.
Privileges based on position and property have always seemed to me unjust and pernicious, as does any exaggerated personality cult. I am an adherent of the ideal of democracy, although I know well the weaknesses of the democratic form of government. Social equality and economic protection of the individual have always seemed to me the important communal aims of the state.
Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice keeps me from feeling isolated.
The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is.
Your missing the point. Their parents are "involved" but they don't want educated children, they want obedient children. Throwing money at schools won't change that.
Borland turbo pascal 3.0, best PC development IDE of it's day, editor, compiler, linker, libraries including a graphics library, and enough space left to build a small project. All on one 5 inch floppy.:)
Agree, drivers written in assembly is so 1980's. If there is any assembly at all it's normally just interrupts and buffers. Memory managers, interpreters, compilers, linkers, drivers, socket level comms, filesystems, there is no "black art" to these things in C. C is the undisputed king of systems programming for the obvious reason that virtually all system are written in C and have a native C API. To a seasoned C programmer a driver is just set of standardized C wrappers around a bunch of esoteric C system calls.
Further, to a seasoned C programmer, C++ will always be seen as syntactic sugar on top of the data structures and encapsulation techniques found in the holy K&R examples. In fact I recall the first C++ compiler I used was from Watcom in the late 80's/early 90's, their entire C++ extension to the compiler was implemented with C style macros!!! In other words, conceptually it was the MFC of early C++ compilers, however they went one further than the infamous stdafx.h, they went all the way to cpp.h
These days I read more C than I write. Most of my for money programming is tying other people stuff together with python (like C it's easily portable if you avoid having a gui, but if you must have a gui it has a standard API to hook your script to C libraries)
It's like being 30 and surrounded by 18yo's doing dumb shit you have already tried, somewhere between now and 40 you will, most likely for the first time in your life, want to start winding the clock backwards. You will want your 21yo body back, but not if you have to give up your 40yo mind. Once you get to 50 you have accepted the muscle and bone aches are here to stay, you no longer trust a fart. Around that time grand-kids start popping up all over the place and if your lucky you might find a new level of calm from watching your own kids getting the same grief from their kids as they gave you.;)
As for TFQ, I decided to learn python in earnest a couple of years back (around the time I turned 50:), I just decided one day to start using it for automated builds. and there is still good money to be had gluing existing things together. Once you stop grumbling about the indents and the two version streams it's a real pleasure to work with, even better if you can think in lisp, most of it will run happily on windows or nix (especially if you develop on nix).
The PyGame module is fun to play with if your doing it in on your own time. My dad started teaching himself python with PyGame late last year after a decade or so of fiddling with Delphi. I think he was the last paying Delphi customer on the planet, and at 79 certainly the oldest.:)
Just because you have a formal cycle doesn't mean that the software has been decently vetted, it just means that you have a guaranteed way to keep staff busy
The real benefit of any process is that it is repeatable, so if you screw up the release you can screw up again in exactly the same way. It's exactly the same benefit as the ability to reproduce a software bug in the lab, except the bug is in the process not the software. A procedure is at it's core an algorithm that defines a set of human actions rather than mathematical instructions, well designed procedures are like well designed software, a rare and beautiful thing. A poorly designed procedure is opaque and obscure, it forces people through redundant actions and makes them feel like a helpless cog.
The basic set of procedures needed to run a commercial software house are almost as well known as the basic procedures for running an assembly line, and both make good use of parallel processing. So it should be obvious to any coder is that like software, procedures will always have bugs and even good procedures will contain redundant assert() checks. However in most workplaces it's not so obvious to coders that they have any power to request a procedural patch and even if they do, the procedures often suffer from the same bloat and complexity found in omnibus software such a office, consequently they have similar lead times for trivial changes.
As for deadlines, business needs them like coders need keyboards. My preferred MO is to start with everything everyone wants, put priorities on them, tell everyone that no particular change is an absolute certainty so we will keep everyoner informed of probabilities and progress so they can properly account for risk in their decisions. In other words, have a goal of world peace that everyone knows will rapidly reduce to a simple pragmatic action such as "do onto others", kinda creepy when you think about some people's fetishes, but every algorithm in life has bugs;).
I think the attitude you are fighting goes something like - "Their computer is bigger than my computer, they must be cheating". Unlike your informative post, I know jack shit about HFT, but I do know it has been around for well over 20yrs and the sky is still where it's supposed to be.
Maybe if we did not make it free to have kids by picking up the tab for them the less responsible people would have less of them.
This is insightful? Lemme guess, you and the moderator are not parents. You've both received some form of of targeted government assistance in the past but are too selfish to admit it for fear that someone else might get one or two crumbs more than you.
Clear and proper English is a necessity to proper communication!
Clear yes. Proper - not really. Both version are cromulent English, the meaning is so fucking obvious to a native speaker that my parser didn't even slow down and try to interpret the syntax differently.
It was a screen scrape from his own public face book wall reposted on the find april wall.
That's why we employ judges.
I suppose if it was sunday and he was standing on a soapbox in the park it would have been OK ?
Yes it would be ok, but it's never ok to put your soap box on the grave of the person you are denigrating.
This is just another example of british facism.
We're British, we're a bit eccentric, one of my ancestors stuck a red hot poker up a king's arse once, but we're mostly harmless these days, especially when it comes to common decency with fire side tools.
I cannot understand why so many people worship this cowardly narcissistic wretch.
Just like a fucking politician. I AM NOT an Assange supporter, I AM supporter of the basic principles of the West Minster system and the rule of law. However they don't mean much if we have to ignore them just to drag coward into court.
Assange has put himself in indefinite detention rather than face court. Of course the US could simply take away his excuse and have "Scooter" proclaim the US will not interfere with his passage to and from Sweden to face his accuser, but I figure the spooks would rather enjoy watching this particular coward "die a thousand deaths", literally a prisoner of his own paranoia.
As I said in an earlier post - The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference. She knows it, and since I'm a strong supporter of our legal and political system I also -KNOW- she was deliberately subjecting Assange to "trial by media".
If the US constitution and courage have any value in the hearts of Americans then Manning would not be rotting in state sponsored "indefinite detention", those involved in the crimes and cover ups would be facing a real court. Manning is the boy who dared to tell everyone the "Emperor has no clothes", had he been a prison guard on trial at Nuremberg he would have received a standing ovation and walked free, Assange is just the local newshound who reported it.
He has a very good case against the rape charges in Sweden, too. Or he should do, if he's innocent.
Sigh, according to this "rule of law" thing I keep banging on about, if he is innocent he should only need two words to defend himself - "prove it".
Disclaimer: This is much deeper than personal politics and has nothing to do with who I do/don't vote for or what I think about Assange's haircut, Hick's rocket launcher, or the bags under Ruddock's eyes. Howard and Ruddock ( the Aussie red team) trampled the rights of Hicks in a similar but more extreme case of defamation. Personally I think, with hindsight, both cases should make a lot of "reasonable" Aussie's hang their heads in shame and read up on the "reasonable" system we already have.
So when Arthur C Clarke fought false pedophile accusations made in a tabloid newspaper via a libel suit, he should have lost?
Words have consequences, particularly when they are false and come from the mouth of the PM or anyone else with influence. The Westminster system holds politicians to account for their words via a concept called "defamation". If said defamation merely causes hurt feeling then there is no legal recourse for the "victim", similarly if a "reasonable person" would be unlikely to believe the words then there is no case to answer. eg: I can say that the PM has sex with donkeys but a "reasonable person" could be expected to know I was bullshiting.
Everything changes if the victim can show material harm (as in someone refusing to do business with you because of those words), the defamation concept is there to redress that injustice. To balance that political level of accountability, politicians also have right called "parliamentary privilege" which is basically a license to make false accusations when speaking in parliament. The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference, and she knows it!
It's a long standing (legal and social) tradition in Oz and the UK that politicians should keep their nose out of the judiciary by staying silent on the issue of guilt until a conviction has been secured. Failure to do so can result in a miss-trial which could allow real criminals to walk. I simply don't believe the PM is ignorant of all this, she did what she did knowingly and should be held to account.
PM's, FM's and Attorney General's, these people should be setting a role model for society as to how our democracy is supposed to function. One of the corner stones of that democracy is "innocent until proven guilty" that replaced "trial by ordeal" in the UK around 1000yrs ago. So when I see my political "leaders" who routinely request judicial investigations standing in front of a mob pointing fingers, I KNOW they are deliberately subjecting that person to "trial by media".
OTOH, around the same time our PM was deliberately smearing Assange, our foreign minister was one of the first politicians on the planet to stand up and say the "free press" rights of Assange should be respected in the same way the rights of the three mainstream newspapers had been respected. Despite the fact the cables were "politically embarrassing" to the FM at the time, he correctly questioned why Assange was being universally attacked while the NYT, Guardian, and De-Speigal (sic?) were being praised by "reasonable people".
Aside from all that, libel is a civil suit not a criminal charge, you don't go to jail for it, you pay for the damages you caused. When you are being metaphorically burnt at the stake, it hardly matters if the "lies" were uttered out of malice or ignorance. Clarke took such risks so seriously he refused to pick up his knighthood for the two years it took him to find justice (in the form of a printed apology). If I were the Judge in Julian vs Julia I would not award financial damages, I would order the PM to hold a press conference and publicly apologize to Assange for the accusation, and I would do the same if Hicks were to sue Howard and/or Ruddock.
As for MC they're the "reasonable person" who believed the false accusations made by the PM.
Been on slashdot for well over a decade and have played RPG's for longer than that (including WoW before it was an intenet only game), I have no idea what NPC stands for.
Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.
What you are describing is called persecution, what we are talking about is called defamation. The PM called him a crook in public, MC cut him off and quoted the PM as the reason.He was clearly defamed and suffered financially because of it. If the PM wanted to call him a crook in public she could have legally done so under parliamentary privilege, she is a lawyer and knows all this but for some reason she chose to ignore it.
200~300ms ping across the Pacific is typical for a clean home PC in Melbourne (it's been in that range on most days for at least the last decade), you have to be very lucky to get below 200, above 350 is unplayable and occurs way too often for my liking.;)
ThunderFooT forced PBCS to post a public youtube apology and remove himself from youtube for a year. PBCS did so and then came back. I really admire the way TF handled it, far more effective than getting the courts involved. TF also worked with PBCS's parents who were concerned about his behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
This as it stands it pretty rudimentary, but it could be the first step in allowing us to program cells in a much more defined and complex way than anything we can do yet.
It's all relative, my 1970's HS biology teacher would have viewed this as "Star Trek" science. This level of detailed understanding would have made his jaw drop in awe, as it did mine. :).
Yep, it's like inventing a crappy uneven wheel and proclaiming it's more impressive than the rolling log it came from
A software release isn't truly trustworthy until actual users test it.
Of course not, that's why getting a serious software project from "it builds" to "it's on its way to Mars" takes such a long time, however you will never get there if you don't have a repeatable build process. The production version is never "the latest build", it's buildXYZ that the testers have been kicking for days/weeks/months, depending how much your willing to spend on quality. However I agree that ultimately "the proof is in the pudding" and I note that about half the missions sent to Mars either failed to get past the Moon, failed to find Mars, or failed to apply the brakes before attempting to land.
;)
If volatility is going up as the project/product matures then your doing it wrong.
Albert hit the religion nail on the head in the last paragraph of his famous speech "My credo", which he gave to the German League of Human Rights in late 1932.
My Credo
It is a special blessing to belong among those who can and may devote their best energies to the contemplation and exploration of objective and timeless things. How happy and grateful I am for having been granted this blessing, which bestows upon one a large measure of independence from one's personal fate and from the attitude of one's contemporaries. Yet this independence must not inure us to the awareness of the duties that constantly bind us to the past, present and future of humankind at large.
Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here, involuntarily and uninvited, for a short stay, without knowing the why and the wherefore. In our daily lives we feel only that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own.
I am often troubled by the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings, and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them.
I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.
I have never coveted affluence and luxury and even despise them a good deal. My passion for social justice has often brought me into conflict with people, as has my aversion to any obligation and dependence I did not regard as absolutely necessary.
I have a high regard for the individual and an insuperable distaste for violence and fanaticism. All these motives have made me a passionate pacifist and antimilitarist. I am against any chauvinism, even in the guise of mere patriotism.
Privileges based on position and property have always seemed to me unjust and pernicious, as does any exaggerated personality cult. I am an adherent of the ideal of democracy, although I know well the weaknesses of the democratic form of government. Social equality and economic protection of the individual have always seemed to me the important communal aims of the state.
Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice keeps me from feeling isolated.
The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is.
Einstein - 1932
Yes, but as soon as his head stopped shaking in disbelief, he would would start to learning how to touch type.
Your missing the point. Their parents are "involved" but they don't want educated children, they want obedient children. Throwing money at schools won't change that.
Borland turbo pascal 3.0, best PC development IDE of it's day, editor, compiler, linker, libraries including a graphics library, and enough space left to build a small project. All on one 5 inch floppy. :)
Agree, drivers written in assembly is so 1980's. If there is any assembly at all it's normally just interrupts and buffers. Memory managers, interpreters, compilers, linkers, drivers, socket level comms, filesystems, there is no "black art" to these things in C. C is the undisputed king of systems programming for the obvious reason that virtually all system are written in C and have a native C API. To a seasoned C programmer a driver is just set of standardized C wrappers around a bunch of esoteric C system calls.
Further, to a seasoned C programmer, C++ will always be seen as syntactic sugar on top of the data structures and encapsulation techniques found in the holy K&R examples. In fact I recall the first C++ compiler I used was from Watcom in the late 80's/early 90's, their entire C++ extension to the compiler was implemented with C style macros!!! In other words, conceptually it was the MFC of early C++ compilers, however they went one further than the infamous stdafx.h, they went all the way to cpp.h
These days I read more C than I write. Most of my for money programming is tying other people stuff together with python (like C it's easily portable if you avoid having a gui, but if you must have a gui it has a standard API to hook your script to C libraries)
I wonder what it'll feel like when I'm 50, or 60.
It's like being 30 and surrounded by 18yo's doing dumb shit you have already tried, somewhere between now and 40 you will, most likely for the first time in your life, want to start winding the clock backwards. You will want your 21yo body back, but not if you have to give up your 40yo mind. Once you get to 50 you have accepted the muscle and bone aches are here to stay, you no longer trust a fart. Around that time grand-kids start popping up all over the place and if your lucky you might find a new level of calm from watching your own kids getting the same grief from their kids as they gave you. ;)
:)
As for TFQ, I decided to learn python in earnest a couple of years back (around the time I turned 50:), I just decided one day to start using it for automated builds. and there is still good money to be had gluing existing things together. Once you stop grumbling about the indents and the two version streams it's a real pleasure to work with, even better if you can think in lisp, most of it will run happily on windows or nix (especially if you develop on nix).
The PyGame module is fun to play with if your doing it in on your own time. My dad started teaching himself python with PyGame late last year after a decade or so of fiddling with Delphi. I think he was the last paying Delphi customer on the planet, and at 79 certainly the oldest.
Just because you have a formal cycle doesn't mean that the software has been decently vetted, it just means that you have a guaranteed way to keep staff busy
The real benefit of any process is that it is repeatable, so if you screw up the release you can screw up again in exactly the same way. It's exactly the same benefit as the ability to reproduce a software bug in the lab, except the bug is in the process not the software. A procedure is at it's core an algorithm that defines a set of human actions rather than mathematical instructions, well designed procedures are like well designed software, a rare and beautiful thing. A poorly designed procedure is opaque and obscure, it forces people through redundant actions and makes them feel like a helpless cog.
;).
The basic set of procedures needed to run a commercial software house are almost as well known as the basic procedures for running an assembly line, and both make good use of parallel processing. So it should be obvious to any coder is that like software, procedures will always have bugs and even good procedures will contain redundant assert() checks. However in most workplaces it's not so obvious to coders that they have any power to request a procedural patch and even if they do, the procedures often suffer from the same bloat and complexity found in omnibus software such a office, consequently they have similar lead times for trivial changes.
As for deadlines, business needs them like coders need keyboards. My preferred MO is to start with everything everyone wants, put priorities on them, tell everyone that no particular change is an absolute certainty so we will keep everyoner informed of probabilities and progress so they can properly account for risk in their decisions. In other words, have a goal of world peace that everyone knows will rapidly reduce to a simple pragmatic action such as "do onto others", kinda creepy when you think about some people's fetishes, but every algorithm in life has bugs
I think the attitude you are fighting goes something like - "Their computer is bigger than my computer, they must be cheating". Unlike your informative post, I know jack shit about HFT, but I do know it has been around for well over 20yrs and the sky is still where it's supposed to be.
Maybe if we did not make it free to have kids by picking up the tab for them the less responsible people would have less of them.
This is insightful? Lemme guess, you and the moderator are not parents. You've both received some form of of targeted government assistance in the past but are too selfish to admit it for fear that someone else might get one or two crumbs more than you.
Clear and proper English is a necessity to proper communication!
Clear yes. Proper - not really. Both version are cromulent English, the meaning is so fucking obvious to a native speaker that my parser didn't even slow down and try to interpret the syntax differently.
It was a screen scrape from his own public face book wall reposted on the find april wall.
That's why we employ judges.
I suppose if it was sunday and he was standing on a soapbox in the park it would have been OK ?
Yes it would be ok, but it's never ok to put your soap box on the grave of the person you are denigrating.
This is just another example of british facism.
We're British, we're a bit eccentric, one of my ancestors stuck a red hot poker up a king's arse once, but we're mostly harmless these days, especially when it comes to common decency with fire side tools.
Silly boy, that's why Lawyers were invented.
I cannot understand why so many people worship this cowardly narcissistic wretch.
Just like a fucking politician. I AM NOT an Assange supporter, I AM supporter of the basic principles of the West Minster system and the rule of law. However they don't mean much if we have to ignore them just to drag coward into court.
Assange has put himself in indefinite detention rather than face court. Of course the US could simply take away his excuse and have "Scooter" proclaim the US will not interfere with his passage to and from Sweden to face his accuser, but I figure the spooks would rather enjoy watching this particular coward "die a thousand deaths", literally a prisoner of his own paranoia.
As I said in an earlier post - The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference. She knows it, and since I'm a strong supporter of our legal and political system I also -KNOW- she was deliberately subjecting Assange to "trial by media".
If the US constitution and courage have any value in the hearts of Americans then Manning would not be rotting in state sponsored "indefinite detention", those involved in the crimes and cover ups would be facing a real court. Manning is the boy who dared to tell everyone the "Emperor has no clothes", had he been a prison guard on trial at Nuremberg he would have received a standing ovation and walked free, Assange is just the local newshound who reported it.
He has a very good case against the rape charges in Sweden, too. Or he should do, if he's innocent.
Sigh, according to this "rule of law" thing I keep banging on about, if he is innocent he should only need two words to defend himself - "prove it".
Disclaimer: This is much deeper than personal politics and has nothing to do with who I do/don't vote for or what I think about Assange's haircut, Hick's rocket launcher, or the bags under Ruddock's eyes. Howard and Ruddock ( the Aussie red team) trampled the rights of Hicks in a similar but more extreme case of defamation. Personally I think, with hindsight, both cases should make a lot of "reasonable" Aussie's hang their heads in shame and read up on the "reasonable" system we already have.
Libel has no case, ever. It's a bullshit charge.
So when Arthur C Clarke fought false pedophile accusations made in a tabloid newspaper via a libel suit, he should have lost?
Words have consequences, particularly when they are false and come from the mouth of the PM or anyone else with influence. The Westminster system holds politicians to account for their words via a concept called "defamation". If said defamation merely causes hurt feeling then there is no legal recourse for the "victim", similarly if a "reasonable person" would be unlikely to believe the words then there is no case to answer. eg: I can say that the PM has sex with donkeys but a "reasonable person" could be expected to know I was bullshiting.
Everything changes if the victim can show material harm (as in someone refusing to do business with you because of those words), the defamation concept is there to redress that injustice. To balance that political level of accountability, politicians also have right called "parliamentary privilege" which is basically a license to make false accusations when speaking in parliament. The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference, and she knows it!
It's a long standing (legal and social) tradition in Oz and the UK that politicians should keep their nose out of the judiciary by staying silent on the issue of guilt until a conviction has been secured. Failure to do so can result in a miss-trial which could allow real criminals to walk. I simply don't believe the PM is ignorant of all this, she did what she did knowingly and should be held to account.
PM's, FM's and Attorney General's, these people should be setting a role model for society as to how our democracy is supposed to function. One of the corner stones of that democracy is "innocent until proven guilty" that replaced "trial by ordeal" in the UK around 1000yrs ago. So when I see my political "leaders" who routinely request judicial investigations standing in front of a mob pointing fingers, I KNOW they are deliberately subjecting that person to "trial by media".
OTOH, around the same time our PM was deliberately smearing Assange, our foreign minister was one of the first politicians on the planet to stand up and say the "free press" rights of Assange should be respected in the same way the rights of the three mainstream newspapers had been respected. Despite the fact the cables were "politically embarrassing" to the FM at the time, he correctly questioned why Assange was being universally attacked while the NYT, Guardian, and De-Speigal (sic?) were being praised by "reasonable people".
Aside from all that, libel is a civil suit not a criminal charge, you don't go to jail for it, you pay for the damages you caused. When you are being metaphorically burnt at the stake, it hardly matters if the "lies" were uttered out of malice or ignorance. Clarke took such risks so seriously he refused to pick up his knighthood for the two years it took him to find justice (in the form of a printed apology). If I were the Judge in Julian vs Julia I would not award financial damages, I would order the PM to hold a press conference and publicly apologize to Assange for the accusation, and I would do the same if Hicks were to sue Howard and/or Ruddock.
As for MC they're the "reasonable person" who believed the false accusations made by the PM.
Been on slashdot for well over a decade and have played RPG's for longer than that (including WoW before it was an intenet only game), I have no idea what NPC stands for.
1975 - Closest thing to a computer at HS was a slide rule.
Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.
What you are describing is called persecution, what we are talking about is called defamation. The PM called him a crook in public, MC cut him off and quoted the PM as the reason.He was clearly defamed and suffered financially because of it. If the PM wanted to call him a crook in public she could have legally done so under parliamentary privilege, she is a lawyer and knows all this but for some reason she chose to ignore it.
200~300ms ping across the Pacific is typical for a clean home PC in Melbourne (it's been in that range on most days for at least the last decade), you have to be very lucky to get below 200, above 350 is unplayable and occurs way too often for my liking. ;)
Google is the one who gets held liable.
Copyright law is already ludicrous, you don't have to make shit up.
Every empire that acquired the rule of law has later lost it under pressure by the rich
Not a student of history, eh?
ThunderFooT forced PBCS to post a public youtube apology and remove himself from youtube for a year. PBCS did so and then came back. I really admire the way TF handled it, far more effective than getting the courts involved. TF also worked with PBCS's parents who were concerned about his behavior.
"postbiological age" - He's not just an artist, he's a bullshit artist.