You're ignorant of both the law and extradition treaties. You're simply wrong, legally speaking, about the perpetrator having to be in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. You're half right about different definitions in different countries--which is why extradition treaties are written to cover crimes that are only similar crimes in both countries. You can't be extradited to Ireland or Saudi Arabia for committing blasphemy because no such law exists in the U.S.
but surely it's unusual for someone to be tried in a country he's never even visited?
Not at all. Before Internet-enabled hacker crimes, there were financial crimes carried out by telegraph, telephone, and bank transfer. The law had to deal with cross-border crimes long before there were modems.
Note also that it is the UK government that I was originally criticising
For what? Extradition treaties themselves are commonplace, and all the talk of the treaty being one-way seems to come from the fact that this is the only prominent extradition case to discuss.
The keystrokes that started in the UK had physical effects in the US that caused damage to US computers and incurred expenses by US companies to fix. How is that not a crime in the US?
If I stand on the California side of the border with Oregon and you in Oregon are hit by the bullet I fire, it's an Oregon court in which I'll be standing tall before the man.
Your government is the entity that bound you by the laws of other countries when it signed various extradition treaties. Fortunately, your government insisted on not binding you to laws that didn't have a parallel in your own country, so it's not the case you can be extradited for, say, violated Ireland's blasphemy laws.
I still don't see why this case is morally or legally unique, such that it's a precedent in any sense. MacKinnon isn't being extradited to fix computers, he's being extradited to answer for crimes committed that we'd have no problem seeing him jailed for had he been in New York when he committed them.
There's no precedent being set here, except in the minds of people wholly ignorant about the history and jurisprudence of extradition treaties, which typically outline which crimes are and are not covered.
Don't like it? Get your government to drop the treaty.
Yes, if the U.S. signs an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia saying that such crimes are extraditable. Normally in signing such a treaty, care is taken to outline which crimes are covered.
In spite of all the fuss, it turns out that the CEC mandate is not especially stringent vis-à-vis what Energy Star has planned. In fact, by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011, Energy Star 4.0 will be in place.
What does their primary voting pattern have to do with a general election? They had to vote for one or the other. And in fact, they were 80% for Hillary up through February of 2008. Obama didn't have the majority of their support until after it was mathematically clear that he was going to win the nomination at the end of March.
So, your claim that they voted for him based on the color of his skin (as if black people are too stupid to pick a candidate for any other reason) is simply false.
There's no violation of their free speech to not invite them. Fox is still perfectly free to publish/broadcast what they want, to pursue whatever stories they want, and to express whatever negative criticism they want out there.
There's a difference between preventing someone from expressing themselves, and not facilitating it. Your right to free speech does not entail an obligation on my part to listen, or let you borrow my megaphone, or invite you to my press conference.
The AC above above is a race-baiting bigot, but one should publish correct facts to avoid leaving their statistics on the wall.
Historically, African-Americans have voted Democrat 88-92% of the time, and sometimes as high as 95%. Going into the 2008 election, any Democratic candidate could expect to get that much. Obama, by pulling 96% of the black vote, at most pulled a couple of percent that he might not have gotten if he'd been white. And even then, it's not obvious that Hilary wouldn't have also gotten 96%, given Bill's popularity with African-Americans, and the current Republican party's outright pandering to racists and white supremacists.
At a Java con I went to a talk by Dave Thomas, one of the authors of The Pragmatic Programmer. The line that stuck with me was "A comment is a lie waiting to be believed."
A very rational calculation that a large corporation like B&N might make is that a company like Spring Design doesn't have the financial wherewithal to sue them for outright stealing the design. When the spreadsheet is done, it might show that it's cheaper to tie up Spring Design in court for a couple years, exhausting their venture capital until they give up, than it would be to license the design.
yes you are operating at about the same level as a pigeon.
That's exactly why it's relaxing:)
I half agree with you about competitive games and allowing players to pour money in to make them more competitive. Where that's a screw job for the non-paying players is the speed of advancement. But where it's not a screw-job is if you play just to play. I bought Battlefield 2142 for $10 of EA's download site, and have been enjoying the hell out of it without worrying about advancing; moreover, I've become aware of how much advancement is the Skinnerian mechanism that keeps players playing, not enjoyment of the gameplay itself.
To put it another way, when you go into a WoW battleground with the toon you've carefully, lovingly advanced and equipped over months of play, and someone else shows up who bought their gear and toon, it's actually no skin off my nose to play with/against them, except insofar as I'm the far better player because I didn't vault into the position I'm in. Awareness of that Skinner mechanism at play actually makes it easier to enjoy a game because you realize that advancement is a fake metric.
Except in the case of a steaming pile of shit like Evony, where a 14 year old with his Dad's credit card can wipe you out in an overnight attack. But that's really an issue of bad balance and crappy gameplay, not allowing people to buy advancement.
I play Farmville, and don't buy any in-game cash, just work the available free mechanisms. I spend about twenty minutes once or twice a day.
First, I find it relaxing to just click away on my farm. In-game, a small amount of simple effort has tangible results (coins, not the cash they're selling) that I can convert to improving my farm, which leads to...
Second, there's a nice lego aspect of it, where building up coins lets you buy trees and buildings and decorations, so you can arrange your farm. The loading screen is a snapshot of someone's farm, and some people do quite impressive things, like making a farm-sized pumpkin out of coloured hay bales.
The first aspect is the basic mechanism of all games (effort->reward->advancement), and it works fine in Farmville. The second aspect is an explicit bonus, a sandbox part of gameplay that provides more reason to enjoy the game. I'll get bored of it sooner or later and stop playing, but I don't see Farmville as being a more profound waste of time than earning points in Battlefield 2142 so I can unlock the Ganz heavy machine gun.
As for giving away my personal information, I have nothing on my Facebook profile that I wouldn't share with a stranger at a party, so I don't care if it goes in a database somewhere. Zynga gets the my public profile (which is all I put on Facebook anyway), and that seems a low price to pay for some relaxing gameplay.
In Scientology, you're not pressured to buy your way to the next level. There's a literal price tag on it. You simply stop dead at the moment that you refuse to open your wallet.
Some Christian churches tithe, but it's not common, and you're free to find a different, non-tithing denomination. Hell, you don't even need a denomination, or regular services, if you believe the bible, or the Quran, or the Sutras, or whatever. There is, in fact, a big difference between some social pressure to contribute and a ticket taker refusing entry.
The short version is that Christian salvation is free. I can go to church, I can read the bible, I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination. They're not selling salvation. It might be worth tossing a few bucks their way (or to the mosque, or the buddhist temple) to keep the services available, but there's no requirement to pay up.
With Scientology, salvation is directly tied to how much money you put into it. You buy access to higher levels.
Doctrinally, I don't think they're much different in crazy factor, but as far as the business practices go in terms of bilking believers, they're an outright fraud.
Re:12 releases and it's still a piece of shit.
on
Fedora 12 Beta Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Really? You fail to do something that millions of other people do without issue, and the problem is Fedora?
Geeks love to tell themselves self-congratulatory tales about how they're weird, or prone to Aspergers, or otherwise exempt from the normal conventions of human interaction, because they're so smart and talented. Hey baby, I'm a rockstar! I don't need to know all that crap about proper hygiene or graceful social interaction--my brain is too full of powerful code that's the next killer app!
Programming will mature as a discipline when programmers see themselves as not that different from any other skilled, educated professional.
Slashdot Mirror
You're ignorant of both the law and extradition treaties. You're simply wrong, legally speaking, about the perpetrator having to be in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. You're half right about different definitions in different countries--which is why extradition treaties are written to cover crimes that are only similar crimes in both countries. You can't be extradited to Ireland or Saudi Arabia for committing blasphemy because no such law exists in the U.S.
but surely it's unusual for someone to be tried in a country he's never even visited?
Not at all. Before Internet-enabled hacker crimes, there were financial crimes carried out by telegraph, telephone, and bank transfer. The law had to deal with cross-border crimes long before there were modems.
Note also that it is the UK government that I was originally criticising
For what? Extradition treaties themselves are commonplace, and all the talk of the treaty being one-way seems to come from the fact that this is the only prominent extradition case to discuss.
None of which absolves you from criminal responsibility for trespassing on their property.
The keystrokes that started in the UK had physical effects in the US that caused damage to US computers and incurred expenses by US companies to fix. How is that not a crime in the US?
If I stand on the California side of the border with Oregon and you in Oregon are hit by the bullet I fire, it's an Oregon court in which I'll be standing tall before the man.
Your government is the entity that bound you by the laws of other countries when it signed various extradition treaties. Fortunately, your government insisted on not binding you to laws that didn't have a parallel in your own country, so it's not the case you can be extradited for, say, violated Ireland's blasphemy laws.
I still don't see why this case is morally or legally unique, such that it's a precedent in any sense. MacKinnon isn't being extradited to fix computers, he's being extradited to answer for crimes committed that we'd have no problem seeing him jailed for had he been in New York when he committed them.
There's no precedent being set here, except in the minds of people wholly ignorant about the history and jurisprudence of extradition treaties, which typically outline which crimes are and are not covered.
Don't like it? Get your government to drop the treaty.
Yes, if the U.S. signs an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia saying that such crimes are extraditable. Normally in signing such a treaty, care is taken to outline which crimes are covered.
What does their primary voting pattern have to do with a general election? They had to vote for one or the other. And in fact, they were 80% for Hillary up through February of 2008. Obama didn't have the majority of their support until after it was mathematically clear that he was going to win the nomination at the end of March.
So, your claim that they voted for him based on the color of his skin (as if black people are too stupid to pick a candidate for any other reason) is simply false.
There's no violation of their free speech to not invite them. Fox is still perfectly free to publish/broadcast what they want, to pursue whatever stories they want, and to express whatever negative criticism they want out there.
There's a difference between preventing someone from expressing themselves, and not facilitating it. Your right to free speech does not entail an obligation on my part to listen, or let you borrow my megaphone, or invite you to my press conference.
How is Fox being punished?
The AC above above is a race-baiting bigot, but one should publish correct facts to avoid leaving their statistics on the wall.
Historically, African-Americans have voted Democrat 88-92% of the time, and sometimes as high as 95%. Going into the 2008 election, any Democratic candidate could expect to get that much. Obama, by pulling 96% of the black vote, at most pulled a couple of percent that he might not have gotten if he'd been white. And even then, it's not obvious that Hilary wouldn't have also gotten 96%, given Bill's popularity with African-Americans, and the current Republican party's outright pandering to racists and white supremacists.
Bwahahahahahah!
mod parent +1 Hilariously delusional.
At a Java con I went to a talk by Dave Thomas, one of the authors of The Pragmatic Programmer. The line that stuck with me was "A comment is a lie waiting to be believed."
A very rational calculation that a large corporation like B&N might make is that a company like Spring Design doesn't have the financial wherewithal to sue them for outright stealing the design. When the spreadsheet is done, it might show that it's cheaper to tie up Spring Design in court for a couple years, exhausting their venture capital until they give up, than it would be to license the design.
yes you are operating at about the same level as a pigeon.
That's exactly why it's relaxing :)
I half agree with you about competitive games and allowing players to pour money in to make them more competitive. Where that's a screw job for the non-paying players is the speed of advancement. But where it's not a screw-job is if you play just to play. I bought Battlefield 2142 for $10 of EA's download site, and have been enjoying the hell out of it without worrying about advancing; moreover, I've become aware of how much advancement is the Skinnerian mechanism that keeps players playing, not enjoyment of the gameplay itself.
To put it another way, when you go into a WoW battleground with the toon you've carefully, lovingly advanced and equipped over months of play, and someone else shows up who bought their gear and toon, it's actually no skin off my nose to play with/against them, except insofar as I'm the far better player because I didn't vault into the position I'm in. Awareness of that Skinner mechanism at play actually makes it easier to enjoy a game because you realize that advancement is a fake metric.
Except in the case of a steaming pile of shit like Evony, where a 14 year old with his Dad's credit card can wipe you out in an overnight attack. But that's really an issue of bad balance and crappy gameplay, not allowing people to buy advancement.
I play Farmville, and don't buy any in-game cash, just work the available free mechanisms. I spend about twenty minutes once or twice a day.
First, I find it relaxing to just click away on my farm. In-game, a small amount of simple effort has tangible results (coins, not the cash they're selling) that I can convert to improving my farm, which leads to...
Second, there's a nice lego aspect of it, where building up coins lets you buy trees and buildings and decorations, so you can arrange your farm. The loading screen is a snapshot of someone's farm, and some people do quite impressive things, like making a farm-sized pumpkin out of coloured hay bales.
The first aspect is the basic mechanism of all games (effort->reward->advancement), and it works fine in Farmville. The second aspect is an explicit bonus, a sandbox part of gameplay that provides more reason to enjoy the game. I'll get bored of it sooner or later and stop playing, but I don't see Farmville as being a more profound waste of time than earning points in Battlefield 2142 so I can unlock the Ganz heavy machine gun.
As for giving away my personal information, I have nothing on my Facebook profile that I wouldn't share with a stranger at a party, so I don't care if it goes in a database somewhere. Zynga gets the my public profile (which is all I put on Facebook anyway), and that seems a low price to pay for some relaxing gameplay.
... says the guy posting on ./
Given all the responses below, I'm actually kind of impressed with just how wrong you were above.
You spending your time doesn't serve to line their pockets.
In Scientology, you're not pressured to buy your way to the next level. There's a literal price tag on it. You simply stop dead at the moment that you refuse to open your wallet.
Some Christian churches tithe, but it's not common, and you're free to find a different, non-tithing denomination. Hell, you don't even need a denomination, or regular services, if you believe the bible, or the Quran, or the Sutras, or whatever. There is, in fact, a big difference between some social pressure to contribute and a ticket taker refusing entry.
The short version is that Christian salvation is free. I can go to church, I can read the bible, I can get into heaven without ever giving a cent to a Christian denomination. They're not selling salvation. It might be worth tossing a few bucks their way (or to the mosque, or the buddhist temple) to keep the services available, but there's no requirement to pay up.
With Scientology, salvation is directly tied to how much money you put into it. You buy access to higher levels.
Doctrinally, I don't think they're much different in crazy factor, but as far as the business practices go in terms of bilking believers, they're an outright fraud.
Really? You fail to do something that millions of other people do without issue, and the problem is Fedora?
Geeks love to tell themselves self-congratulatory tales about how they're weird, or prone to Aspergers, or otherwise exempt from the normal conventions of human interaction, because they're so smart and talented. Hey baby, I'm a rockstar! I don't need to know all that crap about proper hygiene or graceful social interaction--my brain is too full of powerful code that's the next killer app!
Programming will mature as a discipline when programmers see themselves as not that different from any other skilled, educated professional.
Or does $31 million sound like petty cash for Lockheed Martin and Microsoft to invent a superior, military grade communications protocol?