People who commit computer crimes belong in neither solitary nor with the violent offenders... if anything, they belong with people like Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff. (Gee, I wonder why they didn't get put with the murderers, rapists and gangsters?)
I think Abrams has done good stuff and bad stuff and stupid stuff. (The Enterprise engine room is a great example of "stupid stuff".)
WTF? You think the engine room is a better example of stupid stuff in Abrams-Trek than Kirk being promoted from a (fuck-up, insubordinate) cadet to captain in the space of a few days and then keeping the captaincy after the crisis has passed? Or interstellar transporters, which would render starships entirely obsolete (if they didn't just ignore that implication)? Or any number of other plot holes big enough to drive a starshi-- no, a galaxy-class starshi-- no, a fucking borg cube through?!
Fuck, man, JJ sucks so bad even goddamn V'ger could fit through his plot holes!
Why would you be opposed to big data finding out when you take a dump in the morning, as long as its voluntary?
Because even if it is voluntary, if you're one of the minority who doesn't volunteer, Big Data is going to tell everybody else that you're in the same category as the proverbial D.B. Coopers and Unibombers.
I think the previous AC's point was not that it would eventually stop, but rather that eventually someone would come along who was smart enough to run his criminal empire from somewhere outside the US. Then we'd get a story about the CIA, instead of merely the FBI.
Would you, as a human being, want them to:
A) Make contact and bring all their technological advancements to improve life for yourself, your children (if any), and all of humanity?
B) Keep away because "human culture should be respected", and the aliens should keep to their own?
For the average human, the correct answer would be:
C) Surrender so he can take their technology and declare himself emperor of humanity.
Many fisherman in the northeast are caught with overage amounts of lobsters and other catches outside of their licenses and they are forced to release their catches back to the sea. They may incur a fine as well, but no one goes to court or jail usually. The cops overreacted and he should have just been fined and required to release the Grouper back in the water instead of all of this mess.
Based on my "extensive" knowledge of commercial fishing (from watching TV shows like Deadliest Catch), it seems that lobsters and crabs are stored in live holding tanks, while fish like grouper are stored dead, on ice. Releasing a dead grouper back into the water doesn't really accomplish the goal.
Just exactly why the federal government is starting criminal cases over the size of fish caught in a net? Well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Probably for the same reason that the federal government regulates farmers who want to feed their own grain to their own livestock.
No, the fishing regulations are intended to stop species from going extinct due to overfishing, which is a much more legitimate purpose than propping up grain prices.
Nobody with a brain in their heads is claiming this guy did not deserve to get in trouble for what he did.
Let's not overstate the case here: it is possible that somebody could reject the idea that any government has authority over the ocean where the grouper was caught, and argue that therefore no legitimate law was broken. Such a person would be wrong for failing to acknowledge the utility of preventing grouper from being overfished to extinction, but not necessarily brainless.
Before Net Neutrality got on the radar of the mainstream media, everyone involved in the discussion did understand that we were talking only about throttling based on origin or destination, and explicitly not about QOS based on protocol latency needs.
It is only after the media (and politicians) started paying attention that all the cableco shills came out of the woodwork to try to confuse the issue.
No, what I'm saying is that the treehugging nutjobs who would choose animal habitats over people only represent a miniscule fraction of environmentalists. Furthermore, I'm saying that weaving strawmen to claim that all environmentalists are nutjobs is not helpful, and is something only nutjobs on the opposite side of the issue would do.
How many times were you told on TV that marijuana edibles could be given out at Halloween and poison all the kids? Even though edibles have been available medically in many states for years now it's NEVER happened.
Not to mention that parents have been paranoid about any sort of non-commercially-made Halloween treats ever since the whole "razor blade in the apple" scare a couple of decades ago.
Slashdot Mirror
People who commit computer crimes belong in neither solitary nor with the violent offenders... if anything, they belong with people like Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff. (Gee, I wonder why they didn't get put with the murderers, rapists and gangsters?)
Geez, can't a guy make a joke around here without it getting analyzed to death?
; )
We have that; it's called GNUStep and it's actually existed longer than OS X has.
What, you think Apple invented everything?
It's broadcasting on the Internet. Assuming it's intended to be public is exactly as valid as assuming a website is intended to be public.
The lobbyists running the FCC say otherwise.
It's not that hard: they just need to jettison JJ and stick to the "prime" universe.
WTF? You think the engine room is a better example of stupid stuff in Abrams-Trek than Kirk being promoted from a (fuck-up, insubordinate) cadet to captain in the space of a few days and then keeping the captaincy after the crisis has passed? Or interstellar transporters, which would render starships entirely obsolete (if they didn't just ignore that implication)? Or any number of other plot holes big enough to drive a starshi-- no, a galaxy-class starshi-- no, a fucking borg cube through?!
Fuck, man, JJ sucks so bad even goddamn V'ger could fit through his plot holes!
He was a lot funnier.
Better than 90's Batman, sure. But better than 60's Batman?!
Because even if it is voluntary, if you're one of the minority who doesn't volunteer, Big Data is going to tell everybody else that you're in the same category as the proverbial D.B. Coopers and Unibombers.
Really? I allude to a "boob" being the wrong bit of anatomy to call somebody named "Boehner," and you still need me to spell it out for you?!
Apparently, they're counting the riprap jetties too.
Boehner is a boob? I think you need an anatomy lesson!
I think the previous AC's point was not that it would eventually stop, but rather that eventually someone would come along who was smart enough to run his criminal empire from somewhere outside the US. Then we'd get a story about the CIA, instead of merely the FBI.
For the average human, the correct answer would be:
C) Surrender so he can take their technology and declare himself emperor of humanity.
Based on my "extensive" knowledge of commercial fishing (from watching TV shows like Deadliest Catch), it seems that lobsters and crabs are stored in live holding tanks, while fish like grouper are stored dead, on ice. Releasing a dead grouper back into the water doesn't really accomplish the goal.
No, the fishing regulations are intended to stop species from going extinct due to overfishing, which is a much more legitimate purpose than propping up grain prices.
Bad analogy: unlike a nuke, SARBOX has a chance of succeeding.
Let's not overstate the case here: it is possible that somebody could reject the idea that any government has authority over the ocean where the grouper was caught, and argue that therefore no legitimate law was broken. Such a person would be wrong for failing to acknowledge the utility of preventing grouper from being overfished to extinction, but not necessarily brainless.
Speaking of trolls, wouldn't it be amusing if Anonymous started filing DMCA notices against anybody who uses a meme commercially?
Before Net Neutrality got on the radar of the mainstream media, everyone involved in the discussion did understand that we were talking only about throttling based on origin or destination, and explicitly not about QOS based on protocol latency needs.
It is only after the media (and politicians) started paying attention that all the cableco shills came out of the woodwork to try to confuse the issue.
No, what I'm saying is that the treehugging nutjobs who would choose animal habitats over people only represent a miniscule fraction of environmentalists. Furthermore, I'm saying that weaving strawmen to claim that all environmentalists are nutjobs is not helpful, and is something only nutjobs on the opposite side of the issue would do.
No, caricatures of environmentalists do that.
Going beyond the "clean enough" point is the least of our worries; we're in no danger of even coming close to it any time soon.
Not to mention that parents have been paranoid about any sort of non-commercially-made Halloween treats ever since the whole "razor blade in the apple" scare a couple of decades ago.
With negligible exceptions, no, they don't. That's a large part of the problem.