Of course, they could also argue that you have no rights under the Constitution if you're not a US citizen, so they can do whatever they like. I think this would be one of the more likely responses.
This is true. After you assert your rights, however, they'll then do one of two things:
a) They'll detain you indefinitely (up to three months if I remember correctly) for suspicious behavior. b) They'll not allow you in the country, ship you back to your home country, and likely prevent you from ever entering again.
Trust me, I've had experience with these people. They're like the police force only with more power.
I was looking for a place to post this, but you've beaten me to it. Microsoft is giving users the option to choose not to install. The update will be pushed, but won't be automatiically installed.
Eh, I think it's more interesting to read as a quick update, if, for example, you missed a day of/., this way you can get a quick overview of the most talked-about news of the day and the readership's responses to it.
I think it does have some use, and more importantly, I think it's great that Slashdot is actually trying to evolve and become better. It was all the same for the longest time, and I definitely appreciate that they are trying to improve the site.
It's very difficult for lower classes to participate now. They can get a public defender if they're brought to criminal court, but not in a civil suit. They'll have to hire a lawyer. In addition, the MPAA knows that drawing out the suit as long as possible is in their interest, and will attempt to do so, until the defendant is simply out of money and can't affort to pay their lawyers any further, forcing them into a settlement.
I must admit, if they do go through with it, it'll be a hell of a lot more interesting than SCO.;^)
And just like them, they'll have no evidence that proves anything. Whether an IP address from a log from a P2P search bot is enough to convince a judge of the merit of the case... well, that's the interesting part.
Unfortunately I think the US is already there. All they need to do is associate someone with terrorism, or call them an "unlawful combatant", and they get shipped off to the US's little slice of Cuba where they don't have to follow the Constitution.
I had an interesting debate a few weeks ago about this very subject with a friend of mine who voted for Bush in the last election. Now, that's not to say that the guy is an idiot, far from it. But he was indeed arguing that we shouldn't immediately assume someone is innocent in lieu of evidence. He did use the term 'bleeding heart' once or twice, which did somewhat disturb me as in effect he was saying that anyone who thinks terrorists should be tried fits that description. It's interesting to see, though, how this sort of thing came about; the other side's thinking, as it were.
News reports indicate that Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees will be confined at Guantanamo Bay in small cages with chain-link sides, concrete floors and metal roofs. The cages will offer scant shelter from wind and rain. Details about sanitary and hygiene facilities are not available.
I think a lot of this is to do with the (deserved) hatred associated with terrorism by the general public. An eye for an eye, effectively; they don't treat us as humans, so why should we do the same for them? As difficult as it is for me to believe, I think there are people who think this is an adequate way of doing things. In my opinion, though, we can't lower ourselves to their level. Human rights are just that: human rights, applicable to all humans. Even if they're the scum of the earth.
And I want to be clear here: 99.9% of people who say that these terrorists should be tried are not saying we should let them go. That seemed to be the main jist behind the aforementioned conservative friend's argument; that it would be possible that someone could be mistried, get out on a technicality, or not be proven guilty even though they were, so in order to be 100% safe we should simply detain them all and bypass the trial entirely. But even if lawyers and technicalities are the problem, we should fix those problems rather than abolishing their right to a fair trial, a right which has been guaranteed to all for hundreds of years.
Who has the right to determine who gets "chlorinated", as it were? You? The State? President Bush? Who should have the right to choose whether someone else lives or dies?
Here's a hint: There's no adequate answer to that question other than nobody.
You're finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. People aren't going to sue you because their wireless network is insecure, and if they did, they'd be laughed out of court.
Besides, maybe some people don't care if they open up their internet connection! As long as they keep their PC(s) reasonably firewalled, and perhaps use an alternate form of encryption at a higher level, it's possible to open up one's internet connection without opening up one's internal network.
Depends who owns the copyright. If it's stated that you assign copyright to FreeDB, they could simply dual license it, which would effectively make the GPL null and void as the public domain version would let you do anything with it.
For years I've been working with pure, vanilla PHP outside of any sort of buzzword framework. That's not to say that my code was unorganized (quite the opposite, I'm pretty anal when it comes to code clarity), just that I believed as the original poster did that MVC frameworks and the like weren't worth the time.
I've recently started experimenting with CakePHP, and it has somewhat changed my thinking on the matter.
A lot of things we tend to do, especially in web development, get repeated over and over. Data validation, SELECT statements and their JOINs, administration backends, login systems... I could go on. In my experience, it's been when I've been bored to death of doing something repetitively that errors would start to creep into my code. It's pure probability: the more you do something, the better chance you have of one of those things having something wrong with it.
RAD solutions posit a solution to this, centralizing all those repetitive things so you avoid having to type the same thing over and over, and thereby reducing the chance that there is an error in any one of those repeated things. If there's an error in the actual framework, one can fix it, ideally, in one location rather than throughout a script (though the frameworks themselves tend to be closely scrutinized to avoid any obvious issues).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that coding less can mean coding better, as long as you understand why you're coding less, and not doing it simply because you can.
Here's the deal. Do what you love. Don't blame us for doing what we love. To think that your chosen career is somehow "better" than someone else's is pure arrogance.
But see, that's a problem I've encountered recently; one of my team members for a project we're working on was all gung-ho about doing it in Rails, convinced that we could put things together as "one-liners" (his favourite word now, it seems). From the early stages, he was adamant that we do it in Rails, even though neither myself nor the third person in the group knew Ruby or Rails. So about halfway through the planning stages, I asked the guy what projects he had coded in Rails in the past.
He'd watched the screencast and done the tutorial from a Rails book. That's it.
Now, I'm not saying learning Rails (and Ruby) is a bad thing, don't get me wrong. But in early discussions of the project far before this point I'd made it clear that I had about six years of solid, real-world PHP experience and the third member had about a year.
If the project were more open-ended, we may have ended up trying to do it in Rails. However, having a deadline, we ended up deciding to do the project in CakePHP, a bit of a compromise. So far, it's worked out really well for us, and we still get the benefit of coding in a MVC RAD framework.
But yeah, I think lots of people buy into the hype of Rails too easily without thinking about it or trying anything different from the hand-held tutorials.
Sounds like an interesting story, you should write it in your Slashdot (or otherwise) journal some time.
And I agree, I was mature enough to understand my rights and would have objected simply on principle to a lot of things discussed here, including mandatory searches. Luckily, it wasn't that bad in my city in southwestern Ontario, Canada.
Amen. Don't fix what isn't broken in the first place.
I use Thunderbird, and with a bit of spam blocking (combining Thunderbird's built-in adaptive filter with my ISP's filter, which is probably SpamAssassin) I'm able to track my email quite effectively without having my email client graph it out for me.
I will say though that one of the cool features I use is email colourization, where email matching a certain filter is highlighted in a different colour in your inbox (accessible through the Message Filters section of Thunderbird). In the end, though, that's just a new adaptation of filtering rules that have been around since pine came out, or at least close to it.
I'm not releasing my slaves because you want me to. They're just fine as they are.
How's that for simple?
Over the top? Not really. You advocate denying people opportunities based strictly on their sexual preference. In my book, that's just as wrong as denying them their human rights based on other factors like the colour of their skin.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, they could also argue that you have no rights under the Constitution if you're not a US citizen, so they can do whatever they like. I think this would be one of the more likely responses.
This is true. After you assert your rights, however, they'll then do one of two things:
a) They'll detain you indefinitely (up to three months if I remember correctly) for suspicious behavior.
b) They'll not allow you in the country, ship you back to your home country, and likely prevent you from ever entering again.
Trust me, I've had experience with these people. They're like the police force only with more power.
Incidentally...
;^)
Control Panel -> System -> Automatic Updates
Change the option to what you want.
I was looking for a place to post this, but you've beaten me to it. Microsoft is giving users the option to choose not to install. The update will be pushed, but won't be automatiically installed.
Eh, I think it's more interesting to read as a quick update, if, for example, you missed a day of /., this way you can get a quick overview of the most talked-about news of the day and the readership's responses to it.
I think it does have some use, and more importantly, I think it's great that Slashdot is actually trying to evolve and become better. It was all the same for the longest time, and I definitely appreciate that they are trying to improve the site.
I assume by how these things usually work that the MPAA already got his identity from the ISP through a John Doe filing. IANAL.
IANAL.
It's very difficult for lower classes to participate now. They can get a public defender if they're brought to criminal court, but not in a civil suit. They'll have to hire a lawyer. In addition, the MPAA knows that drawing out the suit as long as possible is in their interest, and will attempt to do so, until the defendant is simply out of money and can't affort to pay their lawyers any further, forcing them into a settlement.
I must admit, if they do go through with it, it'll be a hell of a lot more interesting than SCO. ;^)
And just like them, they'll have no evidence that proves anything. Whether an IP address from a log from a P2P search bot is enough to convince a judge of the merit of the case... well, that's the interesting part.
My guess: They'll drop the suit against this guy, but continue to threaten those that don't have the means to fight back.
Much.
A comparison of Phanfare and Youtube by Phanfare! Clearly as unbiased as one can get.
I had an interesting debate a few weeks ago about this very subject with a friend of mine who voted for Bush in the last election. Now, that's not to say that the guy is an idiot, far from it. But he was indeed arguing that we shouldn't immediately assume someone is innocent in lieu of evidence. He did use the term 'bleeding heart' once or twice, which did somewhat disturb me as in effect he was saying that anyone who thinks terrorists should be tried fits that description. It's interesting to see, though, how this sort of thing came about; the other side's thinking, as it were.
The United States is breaking the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo by not treating prisoners humanely. Whether or not the prisoners are indeed unlawful combatants, they deserve humane treatment. An exerpt:
I think a lot of this is to do with the (deserved) hatred associated with terrorism by the general public. An eye for an eye, effectively; they don't treat us as humans, so why should we do the same for them? As difficult as it is for me to believe, I think there are people who think this is an adequate way of doing things. In my opinion, though, we can't lower ourselves to their level. Human rights are just that: human rights, applicable to all humans. Even if they're the scum of the earth.
And I want to be clear here: 99.9% of people who say that these terrorists should be tried are not saying we should let them go. That seemed to be the main jist behind the aforementioned conservative friend's argument; that it would be possible that someone could be mistried, get out on a technicality, or not be proven guilty even though they were, so in order to be 100% safe we should simply detain them all and bypass the trial entirely. But even if lawyers and technicalities are the problem, we should fix those problems rather than abolishing their right to a fair trial, a right which has been guaranteed to all for hundreds of years.
Who has the right to determine who gets "chlorinated", as it were? You? The State? President Bush? Who should have the right to choose whether someone else lives or dies?
Here's a hint: There's no adequate answer to that question other than nobody.
It's still my right to do what I want with my equipment.
Whether or not you could say that I am responsible for what use people make of it is for the courts to decide.
You're finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. People aren't going to sue you because their wireless network is insecure, and if they did, they'd be laughed out of court.
Besides, maybe some people don't care if they open up their internet connection! As long as they keep their PC(s) reasonably firewalled, and perhaps use an alternate form of encryption at a higher level, it's possible to open up one's internet connection without opening up one's internal network.
Depends who owns the copyright. If it's stated that you assign copyright to FreeDB, they could simply dual license it, which would effectively make the GPL null and void as the public domain version would let you do anything with it.
RAD = rapid application development. It's the idea upon which most of these frameworks are based.
For years I've been working with pure, vanilla PHP outside of any sort of buzzword framework. That's not to say that my code was unorganized (quite the opposite, I'm pretty anal when it comes to code clarity), just that I believed as the original poster did that MVC frameworks and the like weren't worth the time.
I've recently started experimenting with CakePHP, and it has somewhat changed my thinking on the matter.
A lot of things we tend to do, especially in web development, get repeated over and over. Data validation, SELECT statements and their JOINs, administration backends, login systems... I could go on. In my experience, it's been when I've been bored to death of doing something repetitively that errors would start to creep into my code. It's pure probability: the more you do something, the better chance you have of one of those things having something wrong with it.
RAD solutions posit a solution to this, centralizing all those repetitive things so you avoid having to type the same thing over and over, and thereby reducing the chance that there is an error in any one of those repeated things. If there's an error in the actual framework, one can fix it, ideally, in one location rather than throughout a script (though the frameworks themselves tend to be closely scrutinized to avoid any obvious issues).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that coding less can mean coding better, as long as you understand why you're coding less, and not doing it simply because you can.
And he is an obvious troll. I even suspect he cut and pasted it based on the line breaks throughout.
*Googling, please wait...*
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
But I digress.
Here's the deal. Do what you love. Don't blame us for doing what we love. To think that your chosen career is somehow "better" than someone else's is pure arrogance.
But see, that's a problem I've encountered recently; one of my team members for a project we're working on was all gung-ho about doing it in Rails, convinced that we could put things together as "one-liners" (his favourite word now, it seems). From the early stages, he was adamant that we do it in Rails, even though neither myself nor the third person in the group knew Ruby or Rails. So about halfway through the planning stages, I asked the guy what projects he had coded in Rails in the past.
He'd watched the screencast and done the tutorial from a Rails book. That's it.
Now, I'm not saying learning Rails (and Ruby) is a bad thing, don't get me wrong. But in early discussions of the project far before this point I'd made it clear that I had about six years of solid, real-world PHP experience and the third member had about a year.
If the project were more open-ended, we may have ended up trying to do it in Rails. However, having a deadline, we ended up deciding to do the project in CakePHP, a bit of a compromise. So far, it's worked out really well for us, and we still get the benefit of coding in a MVC RAD framework.
But yeah, I think lots of people buy into the hype of Rails too easily without thinking about it or trying anything different from the hand-held tutorials.
Yeah, that's exactly what I do as well. Just make sure you explain to them what you're doing and why; it is, after all, their computer.
Sounds like an interesting story, you should write it in your Slashdot (or otherwise) journal some time.
And I agree, I was mature enough to understand my rights and would have objected simply on principle to a lot of things discussed here, including mandatory searches. Luckily, it wasn't that bad in my city in southwestern Ontario, Canada.
Amen. Don't fix what isn't broken in the first place.
I use Thunderbird, and with a bit of spam blocking (combining Thunderbird's built-in adaptive filter with my ISP's filter, which is probably SpamAssassin) I'm able to track my email quite effectively without having my email client graph it out for me.
I will say though that one of the cool features I use is email colourization, where email matching a certain filter is highlighted in a different colour in your inbox (accessible through the Message Filters section of Thunderbird). In the end, though, that's just a new adaptation of filtering rules that have been around since pine came out, or at least close to it.
I'm not releasing my slaves because you want me to. They're just fine as they are.
How's that for simple?
Over the top? Not really. You advocate denying people opportunities based strictly on their sexual preference. In my book, that's just as wrong as denying them their human rights based on other factors like the colour of their skin.
I sponsor the above response. ;^)