But the process on Wiki works and the new policies minimize the problems with articles.
Does the process stop editors from banning known authorities on a subject as vandals because they dared to correct the editor's pet page? I ask, because I know it's happened at least once, and said authority has never been able to get the ban lifted.
And I suppose all the Windows users deserve what they are getting?
Like you, I love and use Linux, but I don't think that Windows users shouldn't have an OS that's as easy to secure (and use in a secure way) as you and I do. It can be argued, however, that Windows users, in general, have never demanded a secure OS, so Microsoft's never really had any reason to give them one.
Mice are almost impossible to prevent entering a building, because they can move freely through such small entry points. They also seek out heat.
Mice also tend to move along walls. If you think your workplace has a problem with mice, moving the cables well away from the walls will go a long way toward protecting them, and glue and/or spring traps set along the walls will often get rid of them.
Not exactly, although you're close. California is run by the liberal Democrats of the coastal counties, against the wishes of the (less populous) Republican counties of the interior.
I keep pointing out literacy rates from a century ago, and you keep ignoring them. Why bother? You've decided the case without examining the facts, and there's no use talking to you any more.
Sorry, the US don't believe in dyslexia? Is that why there are medical billing codes for it?
I've never denied that it exists; I have friends with it. Oddly enough, they're all Science Fiction fans, and not just of TV or movies; they're all readers because they don't let the dyslexia stop them. I'm saying that it's being used as an excuse far too often, and that most teachers don't even try to help anybody who's branded with it. Try to keep up, because this is what started this pointless discussion.
Notice the blue shaded countries have >97% literacy rates.
Yes, and I'll bet that's because they don't believe that dyslexia is as wide spread as we do. Why don't I link to "studies?" I don't because I don't believe in getting my information predigested through some academic's prejudices, especially one with a degree in education and the need to prove that only they know how to teach our children anything, regardless of their own experience or lack of it. Unlike some people, I prefer to think for myself.
Agreed. However, with just a little research, whoever's doing the tech for Joe's Cafeteria can find out where to report that bug and, once reported it will probably get fixed a lot faster than a bug in a closed source program.
The question, is who can *load and execute code* with ease.
It doesn't matter that somebody can identify a vulnerability and write code to exploit it if they can't get it loaded and running on anybody else's box. Even if they can get the program downloaded onto a Linux machine, it won't, by default, have execute permission. In the Windows world, everything has execute permission and ActiveX is there to download and run arbitrary code from any website that wants to take advantage of it. I don't know about you, but to me, that makes Linux more secure than Windows, which is why I'm using it right now.
Members of the board of directors are directly appointed to their positions (including the chair!) by the shareholders themselves.
No, they're elected at shareholder meetings. Slightly different, but I agree that if the shareholders don't like what the board of directors is doing, it's their own damned fault for electing them.
Yes. And since I was found innocent- I'd be naming the Grand Jury members as co-defendants in the suit.
But, as I pointed out in what you quoted, you wouldn't be; you'd be found "not guilty," which is different. No defendant is allowed to plead innocent, because in order to prove their claim, they'd have to prove that they were, in fact, innocent. In order to prove a claim of not guilty, all you have to do is disprove the claim that you're guilty, which is much easier. And, just because a jury finds you not guilty, you don't have an automatic case of false prosecution. In order to get such a judgment, you'd have to make a jury believe that the prosecutor knew you weren't guilty and took you to trial anyway.
Only a corrupt official, Jury, and officers of the law would take an innocent man to trial.
Add the word "knowingly," and I'd agree with you. Generally, prosecutors don't like the idea of going to court unless they honestly believe they're right.
Why complain about what Bill Gates is saying? The last I saw he wasn't in charge any more. If you must complain about what the head of Microsoft is doing, complain about the chairs flying out of Steve Balmer's office.
proving me innocent as an investment in the eventual civil judgment against the corrupt officials involved.
Just because you were found not guilty (not innocent) doesn't mean that you could win a civil suit for wrongful prosecution. You'd have to prove (by preponderance of evidence) that they didn't have enough grounds to take you to trial. And, if they'd gotten an indictment from a Grand Jury, you've got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, because it's the Grand Jury's job to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed with a trial. That's on top of your unwarranted assumption that anybody who would prosecute you must be corrupt.
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!?
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
And I'd want enough money to be set up for life from the jurisdiction that was stupid enough to let their public officials have search warrants when there was still reasonable doubt as to innocence.
Search warrants and reasonable doubt have nothing to do with one another. A search warrant is granted when there's reason to believe that the searchers will find evidence that can be used at a trial, at which time reasonable doubt becomes relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case anybody cares, "La Brea" is Spanish for "the Tar," so "The La Brea Tar Pits" translates into "The The Tar Tar Pits."
Does the process stop editors from banning known authorities on a subject as vandals because they dared to correct the editor's pet page? I ask, because I know it's happened at least once, and said authority has never been able to get the ban lifted.
Remember, boys and girls, BO never promised us "change we can believe in and approve of."
Like you, I love and use Linux, but I don't think that Windows users shouldn't have an OS that's as easy to secure (and use in a secure way) as you and I do. It can be argued, however, that Windows users, in general, have never demanded a secure OS, so Microsoft's never really had any reason to give them one.
The way I heard it was, it ended up with introducing elephants to chase off the lions, followed by mice to scare away the elephants...
Mice also tend to move along walls. If you think your workplace has a problem with mice, moving the cables well away from the walls will go a long way toward protecting them, and glue and/or spring traps set along the walls will often get rid of them.
Not exactly, although you're close. California is run by the liberal Democrats of the coastal counties, against the wishes of the (less populous) Republican counties of the interior.
We don't have one. Whoever gets the most votes wins, even if nobody has a majority.
I keep pointing out literacy rates from a century ago, and you keep ignoring them. Why bother? You've decided the case without examining the facts, and there's no use talking to you any more.
I've never denied that it exists; I have friends with it. Oddly enough, they're all Science Fiction fans, and not just of TV or movies; they're all readers because they don't let the dyslexia stop them. I'm saying that it's being used as an excuse far too often, and that most teachers don't even try to help anybody who's branded with it. Try to keep up, because this is what started this pointless discussion.
Yes, and I'll bet that's because they don't believe that dyslexia is as wide spread as we do. Why don't I link to "studies?" I don't because I don't believe in getting my information predigested through some academic's prejudices, especially one with a degree in education and the need to prove that only they know how to teach our children anything, regardless of their own experience or lack of it. Unlike some people, I prefer to think for myself.
Arguement by assertion. As far as "studies," why don't you read a bit of history, or is that to hard for you?
Agreed. It's just that some people are so obsessed with hating him that they can't or won't let go of the past. Foolish, really.
Agreed. However, with just a little research, whoever's doing the tech for Joe's Cafeteria can find out where to report that bug and, once reported it will probably get fixed a lot faster than a bug in a closed source program.
It doesn't matter that somebody can identify a vulnerability and write code to exploit it if they can't get it loaded and running on anybody else's box. Even if they can get the program downloaded onto a Linux machine, it won't, by default, have execute permission. In the Windows world, everything has execute permission and ActiveX is there to download and run arbitrary code from any website that wants to take advantage of it. I don't know about you, but to me, that makes Linux more secure than Windows, which is why I'm using it right now.
When they report the flaws, do the get a red shirt as a reward?
No, they're elected at shareholder meetings. Slightly different, but I agree that if the shareholders don't like what the board of directors is doing, it's their own damned fault for electing them.
Well, this is Slashdot, after all. If I didn't put in the flying chairs meme, somebody else would have.
To me, at least, it looks like, "You're disagreeing with me, therefor you're stupid."
But, as I pointed out in what you quoted, you wouldn't be; you'd be found "not guilty," which is different. No defendant is allowed to plead innocent, because in order to prove their claim, they'd have to prove that they were, in fact, innocent. In order to prove a claim of not guilty, all you have to do is disprove the claim that you're guilty, which is much easier. And, just because a jury finds you not guilty, you don't have an automatic case of false prosecution. In order to get such a judgment, you'd have to make a jury believe that the prosecutor knew you weren't guilty and took you to trial anyway.
Only a corrupt official, Jury, and officers of the law would take an innocent man to trial.
Add the word "knowingly," and I'd agree with you. Generally, prosecutors don't like the idea of going to court unless they honestly believe they're right.
Why complain about what Bill Gates is saying? The last I saw he wasn't in charge any more. If you must complain about what the head of Microsoft is doing, complain about the chairs flying out of Steve Balmer's office.
Just because you were found not guilty (not innocent) doesn't mean that you could win a civil suit for wrongful prosecution. You'd have to prove (by preponderance of evidence) that they didn't have enough grounds to take you to trial. And, if they'd gotten an indictment from a Grand Jury, you've got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, because it's the Grand Jury's job to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed with a trial. That's on top of your unwarranted assumption that anybody who would prosecute you must be corrupt.
Argumentum ad hominem. How persuasive.
Search warrants and reasonable doubt have nothing to do with one another. A search warrant is granted when there's reason to believe that the searchers will find evidence that can be used at a trial, at which time reasonable doubt becomes relevant.
That doesn't make them stupid. It just means that they've no experience with the Muggle postal system and didn't know how it worked.