...this was pushed by the US gov't and that the US gov't is very clearly to blame for trying to blow this out of proportion (and making the US look even worse).
Your tinfoil hat seems to be a little snug. It's cutting off the blood flow to your brain.
The Professor is missing the irony in his own remarks. Since he is the "oracle" in this situation, the one the idea guys seek. He's pontificating as though he's addressing one of his classes on what should happen in the "real" world.
On the other hand, what he should do is look in the mirror. What do most Professors do when they get an idea? Why, farm it out to a grad student, of course. They're the academic equivalent of the real world instance he's deriding. Grad students after all are cheap labor to be exploited for his infinite favor in the course of their thesis work and perhaps the whiff of a nod in the credits when it's time for him to collect the prize. Other than that, they are merely a commodity.
Remember that May 4th was not an isolated day. The tension had been building for several days. It actually started three days earlier on May 1st. The stand-off between "students" and various law enforcement orgs included throwing bottles, rocks and bricks at law enforcement. Btw, the "students" weren't all enrolled at Kent State.
So it wasn't just a case of the Guardsmen opening fire, for no reason, on peaceful demonstrating students. Should the Guardsmen been there at all? Probably not, but that was the decision Gov Rhodes made when the Mayor of Kent asked for help controlling the situation. Just understand that the "students" were part of what happened. It's not as black and white as it's been portrayed.
No. They only addressed the fire when it threatened the home of someone who had paid the $75 annual fee.
I agree with the poster(s) who believe that Life & Death services should follow the ER model. ERs cannot refuse treatment based on a patients presumed ability (or lack thereof) to pay for the services required. Put out the fire, then bill the homeowner.
Then again, it was a UK court (albeit in Scotland) which freed Meghrabi on the basis of what now appears to be a faulty medical diagnosis. So much for only having months to live.
You should also know that there is considerable speculation in the US of pleas on his behalf by British Petroleum as part of some deal with Libya to benefit BP. Whether that is true or not, BP is not particularly popular in the US right now after the little mess in the Gulf of Mexico.
The argument is over how severely he should be punished, given that he 1) didn't cause any damage, 2) wasn't acting out of malice, and 3) was at least accomplish what he did in large part due to the incompetence of those who are, in theory, supposed to be competent in protecting themselves from such attacks.
1) You know for a fact there was no loss of data or access; no investigation into the break-in; and no work to prevent this from occurring again. 2) You don't consider threats to execute more hacks to be malice 3) Crime is the fault of the victim Your logic is amazing.
What people are worried about is that he is going to have the book thrown at him not because of the merits of what his actions deserve, but because he caused a national embarrassment and those who prosecuted him want to use him as an example, a deterrence to others.
Spoken like a defense attorney who gets paid for being artful, not for seeking justice.
Plus, there's a legitimate question of jurisdiction.
If you attack US assets located on US territory and violate US laws, you have to answer to US authorities violated. There is no question of jurisdiction. The British courts would tell you the same if the situation was reversed.
Bill Gates has made a significant investment in a company called TerraPower. Their reactor design (called a Traveling Wave reactor) will make use of depleted uranium and unenriched uranium.
As usual, posters to Slashdot seem to go out of their way to misrepresent content. Either that, or they're just to damned lazy to read or investigate. Just regurgitate someone else's nonsense.
The real issue has nothing to do with the choice of iPhone as an app platform. It's not that the Brits are technophobes either. Both implied notions just prove my point.
The real reason the BBC got in trouble is that it's a publicly funded institution. They wrote an app to make it easier to access BBC content (imagine). Private software firms had a snit because they felt they should be able to make a buck on BBC content. So they used the public funding issue as a red herring to prevent BBC from making the in-house developed software available.
Sen [Name] is an opportunist, who's got a real talent for [talent]. But he and his [party affiliation] buddies have broken the political system. Because they hate [something important]. They're [vitriolic adj/noun combo], hiding behind the brand name [political adjective].
FTFY
Wow. Somebody's been drinking a big helping of Ma Pelosi's Pot & Kettle Kool-Aid. In slightly modified form (name, party, adjectives), your remark can easily apply to 90% of the politicians in Washington. Take the blinders off.
Wish I had points today. That's one of the more worthwhile commentaries I've seen in a while.
You realize, of course, that you'll tarred, feathered, put on the rack, then drawn, quartered and (worst of all) accused of being a Republican for suggesting that Slashdot posters don't know the law from a hole in the ground. Tsk, tsk.
... and it is possible that the Enterprise, a shuttle prototype that never made it to space, will also be available.
Really, the Enterprise? And does Mr Pickens suppose that the National Air and Space Museum will give it back to NASA so that it can be sold? Somehow I find that highly unlikely.
If you don't void the user agreement by jailbreaking your iPhone, you don't have this problem. Apple set up the environment. As it's designed, users are protected. If you choose to negate that design, you may have problems.
Where is Apple's liability if you don't use it as designed (or as dictated in the UA)?
First cryptographic fiction?
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
Imagine for a moment what his novels would read like if Dan Brown got his facts correct... The book, which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller
Imagine if the reviewer did some research before posting here. Bah! Why bother with even a simple search to see if there are any previous works which might be construed as fiction involving cryptography. You would think that Ben would at least recall Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. If that does not fit ones definition, there's a list suggested by Wikipedia.
These books should be public domain by now. God damn extended copyright might kill another production.
I agree the books should be in the public domain.
It still amazes me how respondents in this forum think that there is some level on which it's acceptable to STEAL. If the work is someone else's this and you want it, then it's okay. If the work is yours and I want it, then it's not. BS. Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?
Sorry, I just don't buy that argument under any circumstance. The discussion here seems centered on whether the studio should get the spoils or the public. Wrong answer. I don't see that as morally defensible UNLESS the creator (or their estate) chooses to cede their rights to someone else (e.g. public domain).
Journalists are professional people who do research and go through an editorial process before they get published. They are held accountable. We need someone to keep an eye on the war profiteers who charge $20 per washing machine load of laundry. We need someone to keep tabs on the polluters and bring it to the public's attention. If it means an exemption to anti-trust laws (that were written before newspapers ended up in this situation) then so be it. A professional news media is too important to be left to die.
First, journalists are NOT held accountable. They too cherry pick but in terms of what they will cover and how. Every newspaper has bias. Some are more egregious than others. Smarter consumers are left to discern the bias (on a per author, per paper basis) and account for it in their reading. Sheeple on the other hand just believe what they're reading.
If a story can be made to sell newsprint (and newspapers have a profit motive like every other business), then that story will be featured prominently. If the paper makes a mistake the retraction, if one is every written, runs on a back page. It certainly does not run at the same level of prominence as the original story.
Then again, there are already legal exemptions for media (and unions for that matter) on less than stellar grounds. It won't surprise me in the least if the current Congress finds it in their best interest to author additional exemptions for the express benefit of their biggest supporters: The Fourth Estate.
Slashdot Mirror
Karma's a bitch, ain't it?
...this was pushed by the US gov't and that the US gov't is very clearly to blame for trying to blow this out of proportion (and making the US look even worse).
Your tinfoil hat seems to be a little snug. It's cutting off the blood flow to your brain.
Odd, I thought if she says it's non-consensual it doesn't matter what you think. It's non-consensual.
The Professor is missing the irony in his own remarks. Since he is the "oracle" in this situation, the one the idea guys seek. He's pontificating as though he's addressing one of his classes on what should happen in the "real" world.
On the other hand, what he should do is look in the mirror. What do most Professors do when they get an idea? Why, farm it out to a grad student, of course. They're the academic equivalent of the real world instance he's deriding. Grad students after all are cheap labor to be exploited for his infinite favor in the course of their thesis work and perhaps the whiff of a nod in the credits when it's time for him to collect the prize. Other than that, they are merely a commodity.
Freakin' hypocrite.
Which is a good thing considering how messed up the world would be if every country cherished war like the US does. :p
What in the world led you to that idiotic conclusion?
Remember that May 4th was not an isolated day. The tension had been building for several days. It actually started three days earlier on May 1st. The stand-off between "students" and various law enforcement orgs included throwing bottles, rocks and bricks at law enforcement. Btw, the "students" weren't all enrolled at Kent State.
So it wasn't just a case of the Guardsmen opening fire, for no reason, on peaceful demonstrating students. Should the Guardsmen been there at all? Probably not, but that was the decision Gov Rhodes made when the Mayor of Kent asked for help controlling the situation. Just understand that the "students" were part of what happened. It's not as black and white as it's been portrayed.
My brother was a student at Kent State and there the day of the shooting. He had always insisted that the guards did not fire first.
No. They only addressed the fire when it threatened the home of someone who had paid the $75 annual fee.
I agree with the poster(s) who believe that Life & Death services should follow the ER model. ERs cannot refuse treatment based on a patients presumed ability (or lack thereof) to pay for the services required. Put out the fire, then bill the homeowner.
Right. And we're not hosting an intergalactic kegger down here either. ... don't touch that blanket kid. It might have smallpox or Martian ebola.
No one should be compelled to be a member of a union as a condition of employment.
Then again, it was a UK court (albeit in Scotland) which freed Meghrabi on the basis of what now appears to be a faulty medical diagnosis. So much for only having months to live.
You should also know that there is considerable speculation in the US of pleas on his behalf by British Petroleum as part of some deal with Libya to benefit BP. Whether that is true or not, BP is not particularly popular in the US right now after the little mess in the Gulf of Mexico.
1) You know for a fact there was no loss of data or access; no investigation into the break-in; and no work to prevent this from occurring again.
2) You don't consider threats to execute more hacks to be malice
3) Crime is the fault of the victim
Your logic is amazing.
Spoken like a defense attorney who gets paid for being artful, not for seeking justice.
If you attack US assets located on US territory and violate US laws, you have to answer to US authorities violated. There is no question of jurisdiction. The British courts would tell you the same if the situation was reversed.
Bill Gates has made a significant investment in a company called TerraPower. Their reactor design (called a Traveling Wave reactor) will make use of depleted uranium and unenriched uranium.
As usual, posters to Slashdot seem to go out of their way to misrepresent content. Either that, or they're just to damned lazy to read or investigate. Just regurgitate someone else's nonsense.
The real issue has nothing to do with the choice of iPhone as an app platform. It's not that the Brits are technophobes either. Both implied notions just prove my point.
The real reason the BBC got in trouble is that it's a publicly funded institution. They wrote an app to make it easier to access BBC content (imagine). Private software firms had a snit because they felt they should be able to make a buck on BBC content. So they used the public funding issue as a red herring to prevent BBC from making the in-house developed software available.
Wow. No bias in YOUR view of the situation.
BTW, these days "journalistic ethics" is an oxymoron. In fact, I'd put it right up there with "politically correct".
.... but he does not want to spend more of his own money doing it, it is time to be suspicious.
I'm not always a big fan of Bill Gates, however given his current investment, how much of his own money would it take to satisfy you?
Sen [Name] is an opportunist, who's got a real talent for [talent]. But he and his [party affiliation] buddies have broken the political system. Because they hate [something important]. They're [vitriolic adj/noun combo], hiding behind the brand name [political adjective].
FTFY
Wow. Somebody's been drinking a big helping of Ma Pelosi's Pot & Kettle Kool-Aid. In slightly modified form (name, party, adjectives), your remark can easily apply to 90% of the politicians in Washington. Take the blinders off.
Wish I had points today. That's one of the more worthwhile commentaries I've seen in a while.
You realize, of course, that you'll tarred, feathered, put on the rack, then drawn, quartered and (worst of all) accused of being a Republican for suggesting that Slashdot posters don't know the law from a hole in the ground. Tsk, tsk.
... and it is possible that the Enterprise, a shuttle prototype that never made it to space, will also be available.
Really, the Enterprise? And does Mr Pickens suppose that the National Air and Space Museum will give it back to NASA so that it can be sold? Somehow I find that highly unlikely.
Childish approach? He's just mimicking the Republican Standard Operating Procedure. Yeah I can see how that's childish.
Right. Just so we're clear about this...
Democrat is to Republican as:
C) Pot is to Kettle
RTFA.
If you don't void the user agreement by jailbreaking your iPhone, you don't have this problem. Apple set up the environment. As it's designed, users are protected. If you choose to negate that design, you may have problems.
Where is Apple's liability if you don't use it as designed (or as dictated in the UA)?
Imagine for a moment what his novels would read like if Dan Brown got his facts correct... The book, which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller
Imagine if the reviewer did some research before posting here. Bah! Why bother with even a simple search to see if there are any previous works which might be construed as fiction involving cryptography. You would think that Ben would at least recall Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. If that does not fit ones definition, there's a list suggested by Wikipedia.
These books should be public domain by now.
God damn extended copyright might kill another production.
I agree the books should be in the public domain.
It still amazes me how respondents in this forum think that there is some level on which it's acceptable to STEAL. If the work is someone else's this and you want it, then it's okay. If the work is yours and I want it, then it's not. BS. Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?
Sorry, I just don't buy that argument under any circumstance. The discussion here seems centered on whether the studio should get the spoils or the public. Wrong answer. I don't see that as morally defensible UNLESS the creator (or their estate) chooses to cede their rights to someone else (e.g. public domain).
Journalists are professional people who do research and go through an editorial process before they get published. They are held accountable.
We need someone to keep an eye on the war profiteers who charge $20 per washing machine load of laundry. We need someone to keep tabs on the polluters and bring it to the public's attention. If it means an exemption to anti-trust laws (that were written before newspapers ended up in this situation) then so be it. A professional news media is too important to be left to die.
First, journalists are NOT held accountable. They too cherry pick but in terms of what they will cover and how. Every newspaper has bias. Some are more egregious than others. Smarter consumers are left to discern the bias (on a per author, per paper basis) and account for it in their reading. Sheeple on the other hand just believe what they're reading.
If a story can be made to sell newsprint (and newspapers have a profit motive like every other business), then that story will be featured prominently. If the paper makes a mistake the retraction, if one is every written, runs on a back page. It certainly does not run at the same level of prominence as the original story.
Then again, there are already legal exemptions for media (and unions for that matter) on less than stellar grounds. It won't surprise me in the least if the current Congress finds it in their best interest to author additional exemptions for the express benefit of their biggest supporters: The Fourth Estate.
But every page in the encyclopedia has to have a neutral point of view. There are other wikis which allow biased pages.
Wikipedia has a constant battle to be "neutral" on many topics. Unfortunately, the definition of neutral is subjective in all forms of media.