"Hicks plead guilty to providing material support to terrorism [reuters.com] in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence and for aiding the prosecution."
The charge of "providing material support to terrorism" was not on the books until 2006, therefore Hicks was convicted of a restrospective crime.
"They could have easily kept the original charges and sentenced him to a very long sentence."
No they couldn't that's why they withdrew them and offered the plea bargain.
And of course Howard approved of the way Hicks was treated, Howard and Ruddock were complicit in holding Hicks as a political prisoner, they willingly threw an Australian citizen under the bus to demonstrate their loyalty to the US-AU alliance.
Would you care to eleborate on that difference? From what I have seen the functionality of a cloud and a mainframe are very similar even though the implementation is very different. ie: both are large central computing devices that allocate computing resources to remote users.
Hicks was held for 5yrs without charges. In 2006 the US made a new law and rerospectively charged him with it. They made it perfectly clear that Hicks would not be released unless he pleaded guilty.
BTW: I trust The Australian and the Telegraph about as much as I trust the Taliban.
The Aussie politicians asked the federal police to see if Assange had broken any laws, they came back with a definite "no". Most of those politicains have now resorted to calling him irresponsible rather than criminal, the foriegn minister has said all along that WL has done nothing wrong by publishing leaks (even though some of those leaks were personally embarrasing to him). So far he has recieved much better treatment by the Aussie government than David Hicks did.
When I went to highschool they had touch typing classes, however since I was a boy I was not allowed to attend. Only girls did touch typing because only girls grew up to be typists. I do about 35wpm hunt and peck, as do most of the other senior developers where I work.
The penalty is lost energy and opportunity - too much curiosity will kill the cat, too little will starve it to death. As for birds, if you go fed some pigeons in the park you can readily observe they do not fly first and look later, they often duck down slightly (ready to take off) and then change their mind and go for the food. Even when responding to an alarm call they don't just flap away in a random direction.
I did that exact thing today, the old duck on the register in the queue I was in was examining every item looking for the barcode, the girl on the next register was virtually throwing items into the bags, not once did she pause to hunt for the barcode or open the picture book to figure out what kind of vegatable she had on the scale. I swapped lanes and even though the girl had an extra trolley in her queue I got thru faster.
It's got nothing to do with mistaking animal for humans. It's about distinguishing real faces from the imaginary faces our mind creates out of random objects (clouds was given as an example). ie: It's about knowing when to run and when to say "OMG, for a moment I thought that big rock was a bear".
"There is no real world situation where we encounter Polar Express level-of-competence simulacra and our life is threatened if we make an incorrect decision. Claiming "survival," let alone it being "key" to survival, is sloppy thinking by researchers who have apparently internalized some evolutionary pyschology memes."
Of course cavemen didn't see animated pictures what they saw is what people today see, random things that look like faces, people, animals, (ever jumped at a tree branch moving around outside a window at night time?). The ability to percive a real threat from very subtle visual clues while at the same time not jumping at every shadow is an evolutionary advantage which I suspect most mammals posses.
It seems to me you're the one who is guilty of "unidimentional thinking" by assuming that one sentance defines my entire worldview. As for the moron slur, go fuck yourself with a barber's pole, you insignificant, narrow minded, immature, arrogant little cunt.
They don't have a search warrant, they don't even have an allegation of what law was broken. They want google to give them something with the hope that they can find a crime. This is no different to a cop who wants to search your home without a warrant in the hope that he can find evidence of crime to charge you with.
"Google has admitted publicly that they intercepted wireless network traffic, and retained the data they intercepted?"
If that's illegal then why do they need to spend so much time and money trying to find what law has been broken. They have a confession from google, why do they need the data to figure out what crime is being confessed to? What's stopping them from going to a judge, pointing to the law that says you can't do that, and obtaining a warrant? - Could it be that there is no such law?
Just because some people think what google has done is morally/ethically abhorent, does not make their actions a crime. Asking to search google without probable cause in an attempt to identify criminal activity is by definition a fishing expedition, which to me is way more morally/ethically abhorent than anything google has done.
"There's all kinds of things that data could show, leading to any number of possible charges against (and eventual fines collected from) Google."
Sure, just like a cop without a search warrant could find lots of things in your home to hang you with. It's not about trusting either google or the government it's about the rule of law which says the authorities must have probable cause. In this case they don't have probable cause, they don't even have an allegation, which is why they don't have a search warrant.
"You're naivety is astounding!"
Voulenteering ANY information to an investigation that is spending a pile of taxpayer's money looking for a reason to hang you, is not just naive, it's stupid.
"Whether or not Atty General Blumenthal has jurisdiction and the right to request that data is something that may need to be decided in a court, but SOME investigative body is certainly going to want to review the data that was collected, since it is (perhaps) evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, and entirely relevant to an investigation into whether or not Google broke laws in collecting and retaining that data."
Evidence for what charge? What you are describing above is commonly known as a "fishing expedition". If Google has been accused of a crime then by all means go to court and get a search warrant to collect evidence, but demanding evidence so that you can go away and scour the books to see if you can find a crime is not how it's supposed to work.
I'm going to use your posts in this thread to make a formal allegation to the authorities here in Australia that you are the dumbest slashdotter ever. Of course I expect you to pay for your own plane ticket to face the investigation. Oh and don't be suprised when the authorties say "yes, you're free to go" that they really mean "No, you're not".
Python doesn't use curly braces for compound statements, that's what the indents are for and why it's important to get them right. Personally the indent thing is the only part of Python that really irritates me since some editors can fuck up the tabs beyond repair. I would love to see Python use C style compound statements but even without that it's still the best programming glue I have used.
Children don't have a context for anything until exposed to it, we are not talking about Roman pedophilia were taking about kids viewing a sexual act between two consenting adults. You are yet to tell me why that is harmfull other than some handwaving about research.
Slashdot Mirror
"Not much worth reading there. And not factually correct, either."
Yes it's a non-story, just the paid for opinion of a worthless Murdoch drone who thinks he can read minds.
Output:
Who is poster?plover
plover is a jerk
plover is not a jerk
"Hicks plead guilty to providing material support to terrorism [reuters.com] in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence and for aiding the prosecution."
The charge of "providing material support to terrorism" was not on the books until 2006, therefore Hicks was convicted of a restrospective crime.
"They could have easily kept the original charges and sentenced him to a very long sentence."
No they couldn't that's why they withdrew them and offered the plea bargain.
And of course Howard approved of the way Hicks was treated, Howard and Ruddock were complicit in holding Hicks as a political prisoner, they willingly threw an Australian citizen under the bus to demonstrate their loyalty to the US-AU alliance.
Would you care to eleborate on that difference? From what I have seen the functionality of a cloud and a mainframe are very similar even though the implementation is very different. ie: both are large central computing devices that allocate computing resources to remote users.
Hicks was held for 5yrs without charges. In 2006 the US made a new law and rerospectively charged him with it. They made it perfectly clear that Hicks would not be released unless he pleaded guilty.
BTW: I trust The Australian and the Telegraph about as much as I trust the Taliban.
"The best way to slap a corporation back into line is by not buying what they are selling..."
Putin slapping Dell at Davos
The Aussie politicians asked the federal police to see if Assange had broken any laws, they came back with a definite "no". Most of those politicains have now resorted to calling him irresponsible rather than criminal, the foriegn minister has said all along that WL has done nothing wrong by publishing leaks (even though some of those leaks were personally embarrasing to him). So far he has recieved much better treatment by the Aussie government than David Hicks did.
When I went to highschool they had touch typing classes, however since I was a boy I was not allowed to attend. Only girls did touch typing because only girls grew up to be typists. I do about 35wpm hunt and peck, as do most of the other senior developers where I work.
The penalty is lost energy and opportunity - too much curiosity will kill the cat, too little will starve it to death. As for birds, if you go fed some pigeons in the park you can readily observe they do not fly first and look later, they often duck down slightly (ready to take off) and then change their mind and go for the food. Even when responding to an alarm call they don't just flap away in a random direction.
I did that exact thing today, the old duck on the register in the queue I was in was examining every item looking for the barcode, the girl on the next register was virtually throwing items into the bags, not once did she pause to hunt for the barcode or open the picture book to figure out what kind of vegatable she had on the scale. I swapped lanes and even though the girl had an extra trolley in her queue I got thru faster.
It's got nothing to do with mistaking animal for humans. It's about distinguishing real faces from the imaginary faces our mind creates out of random objects (clouds was given as an example). ie: It's about knowing when to run and when to say "OMG, for a moment I thought that big rock was a bear".
"There is no real world situation where we encounter Polar Express level-of-competence simulacra and our life is threatened if we make an incorrect decision. Claiming "survival," let alone it being "key" to survival, is sloppy thinking by researchers who have apparently internalized some evolutionary pyschology memes."
Of course cavemen didn't see animated pictures what they saw is what people today see, random things that look like faces, people, animals, (ever jumped at a tree branch moving around outside a window at night time?). The ability to percive a real threat from very subtle visual clues while at the same time not jumping at every shadow is an evolutionary advantage which I suspect most mammals posses.
Seems to me it's you who is blowing the caveat "could" way out of proportion.
It seems to me you're the one who is guilty of "unidimentional thinking" by assuming that one sentance defines my entire worldview. As for the moron slur, go fuck yourself with a barber's pole, you insignificant, narrow minded, immature, arrogant little cunt.
"Please explain how it's a fishing expedition."
They don't have a search warrant, they don't even have an allegation of what law was broken. They want google to give them something with the hope that they can find a crime. This is no different to a cop who wants to search your home without a warrant in the hope that he can find evidence of crime to charge you with.
"Google has admitted publicly that they intercepted wireless network traffic, and retained the data they intercepted?"
If that's illegal then why do they need to spend so much time and money trying to find what law has been broken. They have a confession from google, why do they need the data to figure out what crime is being confessed to? What's stopping them from going to a judge, pointing to the law that says you can't do that, and obtaining a warrant? - Could it be that there is no such law?
Just because some people think what google has done is morally/ethically abhorent, does not make their actions a crime. Asking to search google without probable cause in an attempt to identify criminal activity is by definition a fishing expedition, which to me is way more morally/ethically abhorent than anything google has done.
"The US government is refusing to regulate the internet correctly"
That's it in a nutshell, all this talk about the "internet remaining free from regulation" is complete bollocks, it has always been regulated.
"And that is where your reasoning is flawed. Both sides. It's all "black and white" or "us and them.""
Yes and if you only read one side then you will be either black or white, reading both sides at least has the potential for different shades of grey.
"Hadrian's Firewall?"
Protecting the civilised world from large hairy men wearing nothing under their skirts.
"So if some freedom fighters (I'll call them the IRA cos that's not too controversial) take up arms"
Fuck the revolution, ( speech @ 4:00 ).
"There's all kinds of things that data could show, leading to any number of possible charges against (and eventual fines collected from) Google."
Sure, just like a cop without a search warrant could find lots of things in your home to hang you with. It's not about trusting either google or the government it's about the rule of law which says the authorities must have probable cause. In this case they don't have probable cause, they don't even have an allegation, which is why they don't have a search warrant.
"You're naivety is astounding!"
Voulenteering ANY information to an investigation that is spending a pile of taxpayer's money looking for a reason to hang you, is not just naive, it's stupid.
"Whether or not Atty General Blumenthal has jurisdiction and the right to request that data is something that may need to be decided in a court, but SOME investigative body is certainly going to want to review the data that was collected, since it is (perhaps) evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, and entirely relevant to an investigation into whether or not Google broke laws in collecting and retaining that data."
Evidence for what charge? What you are describing above is commonly known as a "fishing expedition". If Google has been accused of a crime then by all means go to court and get a search warrant to collect evidence, but demanding evidence so that you can go away and scour the books to see if you can find a crime is not how it's supposed to work.
I'm going to use your posts in this thread to make a formal allegation to the authorities here in Australia that you are the dumbest slashdotter ever. Of course I expect you to pay for your own plane ticket to face the investigation. Oh and don't be suprised when the authorties say "yes, you're free to go" that they really mean "No, you're not".
"I think the marketing name took hold of the submitter and editor here"
Yet more confirmation of my theory that expensive fishing lures are designed to catch wallets, not fish.
Python doesn't use curly braces for compound statements, that's what the indents are for and why it's important to get them right. Personally the indent thing is the only part of Python that really irritates me since some editors can fuck up the tabs beyond repair. I would love to see Python use C style compound statements but even without that it's still the best programming glue I have used.
Children don't have a context for anything until exposed to it, we are not talking about Roman pedophilia were taking about kids viewing a sexual act between two consenting adults. You are yet to tell me why that is harmfull other than some handwaving about research.