And yes, desktop environments need to know about bluetooth.
Why ? Isn't Bluetooth ultimately just a wireless communications protocol ? You'd think that you could use the same software components to manage both USB and Bluetooth devices.
He recruited very effectively for terrorist groups, diminished American freedoms, espoused torture, and impoverished Americans. Treason does not have to be intentional or openly espoused.
Yes, as a matter of fact treason does have to be intentional. Mere incompetence is not treacherous, no matter how deep. It is no more possible to be guilty of treason unintentionally than it it is to murder someone unintentionally (the proper charge then is "manslaughter").
Sorry to reply twice, but I didn't think quickly enough to include this to the previous post.
And so your child grows, and becomes a teen, and one day the 16-year old comes crying home because she thought it would be fun to take a nude photo of herself and she showed it to someone and they called the police and now she was charged with manufacturing and possessing child porn and would probably end up in a register of sex offenders... will you still be loving your Big Brother?
The proper course of action in this case, of course, is to blame the other person - the one who called the police - of taking the photos. It's his word against your daughters; clearly, the pervert stole her phone, forced her to pose for nude photos, and finally tried to blame the poor innocent "child" of it. He then intimidated her to give false witness to the police with threats of violence; it's obvious, from the way she was in tears as they arrived. Hell, he probably tried to blackmail her to have sex with him with those pictures ! It's a horrible pervert (teacher ?) trying to molest a poor innocent child; won't someone please think of the children ?
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; if some authoritarian shithead tries to get my daughter sent to prison and the sex offender registry when she's done no wrong to anyone, he can bloody well suffer in her stead. And a twisted worldview based on hysteric lies is a double-edged sword, one that can be turned against its wielder.
Ah, first it's the ISP. But should not restaurants provide food for free to the investigators as well? Free cab rides? Where does it end? Will you be willing to pay extra to a hundred different businesses to "save your child"? And should the childless be excempt?
Well, actually yes, I would pay to a business who saved my child. Or, to put it even more clearly: the investigators should pay the very reasonable fee the ISPs are asking.
Did you perhaps think that I meant the opposite (that the business would have to foot the bill of saving my child) ? Because your post really doesn't make much sense unless you did.
Don't you know that saving one child from a single nude photograph that involved no physical contact is far more important than preventing murder, rape and even genocide of entire populations. It's one of the few things that is more serious than pirating DVDs!
So, hypothethically speaking, a torrent of one of those "nudism" DVDs would be the trigger to apocalypse ?-)
It's kinda depressing that we've not advanced any since the Dark Ages. And it's even more depressing that there's always assholes ready to exploit this psychological weakness. And it's just downright annoying that these assholes always, inevitably, think of themselves as heroes.
ISP's can do all the belly-aching they want, but when it saves a child from being molested, it's worth the cost and effort.
Well then, tell that to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, who are the ones complaining about costs.
I see it as perfectly legit to charge for civil subpoenas, or for investigations that have no bearing on life or bodily harm.
I see it as perfectly legit to charge someone who wants your help for that help, period. The police get paid for doing these investigations; why shouldn't the ISPs ?
Do you have any idea of the kind of balls it took to be a part of this team? Under intense time pressure to work with previously theoretical isotopes that just might save tens of thousands of American lives?
The company in charge of emptying wastebaskets was under intense pressure ? Or are you suggesting that Oppenheimer took this safe to the garbage pit by himself ?
And you judge them? You, with the heat on, comfortable, probably overly fed.
You forget the countless lives, possibly even the planet itself, that may have been saved by dropping those two bombs.
And on this same note, I suggest we saintify Hitler for demonstrating to the world that genocide is messy. Not that that has stopped anyone, but still...
Some Iraqis thought so. I personally prefer the Red Dawn scenario, but to each their own.
Don't think of it as invasion, think of it as outsourcing the Congresscritters jobs for a change;).
Does superior technology give you the moral right to impose your will on a technologically inferior culture?
No, but that didn't stop the European (and now American) powers from doing so anyway.
Why would technical inferiority give members of a culture a blanket permission to do anything ? It doesn't, unless we go the way of cultural relativism; but if we do, then we can't condemn past European or modern American imperialism, since it was/is a feature of said cultures.
Either imposing your will to a member of another culture is okay in the same cases as imposing it on a member of your own (at least protection of yourself or third parties, possibly other members of that foreign culture) or the question is logically incoherent. Those are the alternatives.
As for the slave issue, this country was on the verge of collapse just a few years after the War of Independence... we NEEDED a Constitution or we would crumble and be conquered by another nation. The Founding Fathers recognized these very real dangers and so compromised with the South on the issue to accomplish the more urgent need. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers recognized that allowing slavery was hypocritical and wrong, but they left it to another generation to resolve.
Translation: they knew it was wrong, but did it anyway to serve their personal interests. Just like Bush and every other politician before and after.
Of all possible solutions to the problem, Lincoln chose the worst course of action. It's unfortunate, but it's over now, so we move forward.
Worst possible course of action ? By actually enforcing the law he had sworn to protect ?
I suppose it could be argued that ignoring some parts of the Constitution would had been preferable to waging a war; however, please understand that it logically follows that any other part of it can be ignored if whoever does the interpretation thinks that greater good can come from that. Basically, it stops being a law and becomes a mere suggestion. That may or may not be preferable to treating it as binding law, but if you think that Lincoln was wrong to not ignore parts of the Constitution for pragmatism's sake then don't complain if the modern-day government decides to ignore, say, the parts about the First Amendment.
It really irritates me when people point to the slavery issue to say that there was all sorts of confusion built into the Constitution. That is utterly bogus. Yes, the principles of the Individual Liberty are at odds with the principles of Slavery, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The rest of the Constitution makes perfect sense and it is deceptive to suggest otherwise.
Once you accept the principle of Slavery, you have abandoned the principle of Individual Liberty. Once you accept the principle that Constitution can be ignored, you have abandoned the principle that it is binding, and have no reason to compain when it is ignored again, and again and again. So, whether or not the rest of the Constitution makes sense or not is irrelevant, since the document is nothing but a piece of paper even its writers didn't actually stick to.
Actually, photons are their own antiparticles (which is why photon number isn't conserved and you can have reactions like pair production, given that there is a third body to carry away extra momentum)
Given that photons can and do carry momentum (which is why they are almost formed in pairs of equal energy and shoot in the opposite directions), what do you need the third body for ? In fact, doesn't matter-antimatter annihilation prove that it's quite unnecessary, since there's nothing but a pair of photons afterwards ?
For that matter, can photons annihilate each other, and if yes, what would the end result be - more photons, or nonphotonic matter ?
I can't possibly agree with you on this. If no harm is being done, then why prosecute for it? The ONLY connection to harm you can make, tenuous at best, is thoughtcrime: That someone who masturbates to child porn will become a person who harms children through child molestation.
You know, that was kind of my point...
Liberty or Security. Choose one.
Since it seems that the children in this particular case have neither, and are in fact actively hrmed by the law in question, getting either would be an improvement.
You know, sometimes the kids actually deserve to get caught. I know that all these "rules" are a pain, but if you teach contempt for rules (even if you don't like them) you'll end up with people who CAN NOT fathom why there are any rules in the first place, and who don't know which rules to follow, so they end up SHOCKED when the rules are enforced.
I honestly can't think of a more efficient way to bring all law into contempt than prosecuting a case like this. Any official who had anything to do with this has certainly lost any and all respect from me forever, as has a court which didn't throw the charge out as ridiculous. The school - well, schools and their personnel generally don't deserve respect to begin with, since they keep on doing shit like this, but whatever lingering remains there might have been are certainly gone now.
All in all, this is not exactly a great victory for law and order. I wonder what happens when these people, who have now been shown that law exists to punish rather than protect them, reach adulthood ? Not just those prosecuted but everyone in that school, and since these kind of things seem to be increasingly common, the whole next generation ? Might be interesting times ahead when everyone regards law and legal authority as a threat and an enemy...
See, fear can enforce obedience for a while, but it's always just eye-worship at best. Respect, now that has to be earned, and to earn it you have to be worthy of it. And the law, well, that has now once again been shown to not be worth anyone's respect. So either the society increases surveillance to the point of becoming a police states, degenerates into anarchy, or changes the law and the legal system so they become worthy of respect. Those are the choices. Given the increasing surveillance in all western societies, I think it's pretty obvious what we've chosen...
I really don't know how it snowballed this far without any public outcry whatsoever.
Well, user kaos07 summed it up nicely in this comment: "I think only one group of people defend those who watch child porn with such a stupid argument and I bet you know who they are."
Everyone who speaks against "think of the children" crowd must be a pedophile, everyone who speaks against gun control laws must be a violent nutcase, everyone who speaks for them must be a fascist, everyone who speaks for abortion must be a bloodthirsty babykiller who wants to eat the aborted foetuses and everyone who speaks against it must want women chained to the stove. Everyone who speaks against Israel must be a Nazi, and everyone who speaks for it must be a supporter of Palestinian genocide. Everyone who speaks against death penalty wants murderers on the streets and everyone who speaks for it wants to execute jaywalkers. Everyone who is religious wants to brainwash our children to perform human sacrifices in a new Dark Age while all atheists are actually secretly worshipping the Devil and trying to get us all sent to Hell. In short, everyone who opposes me in any way is either evil, stupid or both and rapes baby squirrels besides.
This is the cancer that's killing anything resembling rational thought in politics.
No it isn't. It is a very simple one, charge based on harm. child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail.
Actually no, it isn't at all simple. For example, if some pedophile masturbates to pictures of me in a bath as a baby, he's clearly finding them sexually exciting, and thus pornographic, yet I was not harmed in the least by either them being taken or by his activities about them later. And as this case shows, since the law defines everything under 18 as "child pornography", and since teenagers under this are already sexually aware and often active, we get to the situation where laws that were presumably intended to protect kids from predators are used against people interacting with their peers, or even photographing themselves.
As an end result, we have laws based on oversimplification of someone's wistful thoughts about reality where everyone under 18 is a "pure, innocent child" and things like "pornography" can be defined. Such a world has never existed and will never exist, yet we're enforcing laws based on it and harming the very people they were supposed to protect in the process.
Of course I'm making a rather huge assumption here: that the lawmaker was merely incompetent, rather than outright malevolent. However, my more cynical side agrees with your assessment that this is all going according to their will...
You shouldn't look at the law as a means to enforce what is "right" and "wrong" from a moral stance, but as a means of protecting peoples rights. If you don't, more laws like this will come out of the woodwork.
That won't work. That standard is just ripe for abuse than the standard of right and wrong. Once upon a time, when women were struggling for a vote, one of the arguments against it was that it would "sully" them with politics, thus violating their "right" to be pure. This would simply lead to similar arguments used to justify abuse, all in the name of protecting the victim of course.
You can't come up with any kind of principle that power-hungry people couldn't twist to serve as an excuse to lord it over other people. It's just not possible.
Even a garbage company has this stuff. How do you suppose they decide who gets the desk jobs vs who handles the medical waste?
Seeing how the whole point was to get away from the office, a loss would be victory;).
It's not like you touch the garbage with your bare hands; in fact some of the more advanced truck models nowadays don't even require you to leave the cabin. The only real bad side to that job is having to drive in insanely tight spaces, but that's what insurance is for;). And for the same reason you are unlikely to be fired without a good reason, since giving a $100,000+ truck to an new employee is always risky.
My concern is what if something bad were to happen during the inauguration, and suddenly a million people whip out their cellphones all start calling 911, their family, news organizations, and generally broadcast an emergency to the world all at the same time.
I'd be more worried about mass panic. Suppose someone blows a smoke bomb, or something else flashy but harmless, and then yells: "Terrorists ! It's a chemical weapon ! Run for your lives !" ? It wouldn't be pretty.
You have lots of people afraid of terrorists in a ceremony that has a bullseye painted all over it. If someone farts too loudly, it's going to be a bloodbath.
At least you don't need to fear freezing to death or having barbecued horse to clean up.
Cut open the horse, crawl inside, and sleep in the sweet warmth of its guts. Or was this before Empire Strikes Back came out ?-)
Besides, back in my day we didn't have any horses. We had to travel to Japan, find a samurai and beat him up with our bare hands so he would commit seppuku. And we were glad to have hands !
As the inevitable cuts came, who do you think hung on to their job?
The cute receptionist?
Only if she puts out.
If she's willing to have sex for money, wouldn't it be far more profitable to simply become an outright prostitute ? Or would that violate a non-compete agreement ? Coming to think of it, if you'd repel the anti-pimping laws, the firm with the cutest receptionists could get a competitive advantage and some extra revenue; and just think of the possibilities for rising employee morale !-) The employee of the month could get use of said receptionist / HR personnel morale consultant for free for a month, and...
Just read the classics. The Prince and The Art of War. If you master those two books, suddenly the social climbing stuff is easy and transparent. And the people who care about social climbing but aren't masters become easy to manipulate.
Easy to manipulate - by, for example, recommending wrong guides to them ?-) Or did you want me to think that they are wrong guides to keep me away from them ? Or did you want me to think that you want me to think...
It kinda makes me wish that I could get a job as a garbage truck driver or something else that involves no office politics.
Then plan to be able to live for 6 months without a job and without losing your house if needed. Then you will have the option to leave if 'current job' only gets 'pretty bad'. If not, then plan to die working your arse off for somebody else without hope and fear every bump in the stock market.
With 50 applicants to every position, I'd say that 6 months is quite an optimistic estimate for getting a new job. In fact unless you are independently wealthy and can live without working infinitely, it is not a good idea to leave a job, ever.
Cheer up. At least suicide is a way to get out of the machine.
Unless, as they say, this world is just a beta version of Hell. No, wait, if we go by D&D rules, Hell would be communism/fascism, while laissez-faire capitalism would be Abyss.
Slashdot Mirror
Why ? Isn't Bluetooth ultimately just a wireless communications protocol ? You'd think that you could use the same software components to manage both USB and Bluetooth devices.
Yes, as a matter of fact treason does have to be intentional. Mere incompetence is not treacherous, no matter how deep. It is no more possible to be guilty of treason unintentionally than it it is to murder someone unintentionally (the proper charge then is "manslaughter").
Sorry to reply twice, but I didn't think quickly enough to include this to the previous post.
The proper course of action in this case, of course, is to blame the other person - the one who called the police - of taking the photos. It's his word against your daughters; clearly, the pervert stole her phone, forced her to pose for nude photos, and finally tried to blame the poor innocent "child" of it. He then intimidated her to give false witness to the police with threats of violence; it's obvious, from the way she was in tears as they arrived. Hell, he probably tried to blackmail her to have sex with him with those pictures ! It's a horrible pervert (teacher ?) trying to molest a poor innocent child; won't someone please think of the children ?
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; if some authoritarian shithead tries to get my daughter sent to prison and the sex offender registry when she's done no wrong to anyone, he can bloody well suffer in her stead. And a twisted worldview based on hysteric lies is a double-edged sword, one that can be turned against its wielder.
Well, actually yes, I would pay to a business who saved my child. Or, to put it even more clearly: the investigators should pay the very reasonable fee the ISPs are asking.
Did you perhaps think that I meant the opposite (that the business would have to foot the bill of saving my child) ? Because your post really doesn't make much sense unless you did.
Ironically enough, I am the elder brother ;).
So, hypothethically speaking, a torrent of one of those "nudism" DVDs would be the trigger to apocalypse ?-)
Yes, you are right. Or, to quote kaos07: "I think only one group of people defend those who watch child porn with such a stupid argument and I bet you know who they are."
It's kinda depressing that we've not advanced any since the Dark Ages. And it's even more depressing that there's always assholes ready to exploit this psychological weakness. And it's just downright annoying that these assholes always, inevitably, think of themselves as heroes.
Lets flip that once more and ask: "Is 18 pounds really an unreasonable amount for someone to ask for saving your child ?"
Personally, I'd simply not go out one night to save enough money to save my child, but that's just me...
Well then, tell that to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, who are the ones complaining about costs.
I see it as perfectly legit to charge someone who wants your help for that help, period. The police get paid for doing these investigations; why shouldn't the ISPs ?
Don't worry, you can just blame it on your parents, and they on theirs, and so on. The real culprit is Adam or amoeba, whichever you prefer.
Or you could blame the little psycho who pulled the trigger.
The company in charge of emptying wastebaskets was under intense pressure ? Or are you suggesting that Oppenheimer took this safe to the garbage pit by himself ?
Those are mighty words from an Anonymous Coward.
And on this same note, I suggest we saintify Hitler for demonstrating to the world that genocide is messy. Not that that has stopped anyone, but still...
Don't think of it as invasion, think of it as outsourcing the Congresscritters jobs for a change ;).
Why would technical inferiority give members of a culture a blanket permission to do anything ? It doesn't, unless we go the way of cultural relativism; but if we do, then we can't condemn past European or modern American imperialism, since it was/is a feature of said cultures.
Either imposing your will to a member of another culture is okay in the same cases as imposing it on a member of your own (at least protection of yourself or third parties, possibly other members of that foreign culture) or the question is logically incoherent. Those are the alternatives.
Translation: they knew it was wrong, but did it anyway to serve their personal interests. Just like Bush and every other politician before and after.
Worst possible course of action ? By actually enforcing the law he had sworn to protect ?
I suppose it could be argued that ignoring some parts of the Constitution would had been preferable to waging a war; however, please understand that it logically follows that any other part of it can be ignored if whoever does the interpretation thinks that greater good can come from that. Basically, it stops being a law and becomes a mere suggestion. That may or may not be preferable to treating it as binding law, but if you think that Lincoln was wrong to not ignore parts of the Constitution for pragmatism's sake then don't complain if the modern-day government decides to ignore, say, the parts about the First Amendment.
Once you accept the principle of Slavery, you have abandoned the principle of Individual Liberty. Once you accept the principle that Constitution can be ignored, you have abandoned the principle that it is binding, and have no reason to compain when it is ignored again, and again and again. So, whether or not the rest of the Constitution makes sense or not is irrelevant, since the document is nothing but a piece of paper even its writers didn't actually stick to.
Given that photons can and do carry momentum (which is why they are almost formed in pairs of equal energy and shoot in the opposite directions), what do you need the third body for ? In fact, doesn't matter-antimatter annihilation prove that it's quite unnecessary, since there's nothing but a pair of photons afterwards ?
For that matter, can photons annihilate each other, and if yes, what would the end result be - more photons, or nonphotonic matter ?
You know, that was kind of my point...
Since it seems that the children in this particular case have neither, and are in fact actively hrmed by the law in question, getting either would be an improvement.
I honestly can't think of a more efficient way to bring all law into contempt than prosecuting a case like this. Any official who had anything to do with this has certainly lost any and all respect from me forever, as has a court which didn't throw the charge out as ridiculous. The school - well, schools and their personnel generally don't deserve respect to begin with, since they keep on doing shit like this, but whatever lingering remains there might have been are certainly gone now.
All in all, this is not exactly a great victory for law and order. I wonder what happens when these people, who have now been shown that law exists to punish rather than protect them, reach adulthood ? Not just those prosecuted but everyone in that school, and since these kind of things seem to be increasingly common, the whole next generation ? Might be interesting times ahead when everyone regards law and legal authority as a threat and an enemy...
See, fear can enforce obedience for a while, but it's always just eye-worship at best. Respect, now that has to be earned, and to earn it you have to be worthy of it. And the law, well, that has now once again been shown to not be worth anyone's respect. So either the society increases surveillance to the point of becoming a police states, degenerates into anarchy, or changes the law and the legal system so they become worthy of respect. Those are the choices. Given the increasing surveillance in all western societies, I think it's pretty obvious what we've chosen...
Well, user kaos07 summed it up nicely in this comment: "I think only one group of people defend those who watch child porn with such a stupid argument and I bet you know who they are."
Everyone who speaks against "think of the children" crowd must be a pedophile, everyone who speaks against gun control laws must be a violent nutcase, everyone who speaks for them must be a fascist, everyone who speaks for abortion must be a bloodthirsty babykiller who wants to eat the aborted foetuses and everyone who speaks against it must want women chained to the stove. Everyone who speaks against Israel must be a Nazi, and everyone who speaks for it must be a supporter of Palestinian genocide. Everyone who speaks against death penalty wants murderers on the streets and everyone who speaks for it wants to execute jaywalkers. Everyone who is religious wants to brainwash our children to perform human sacrifices in a new Dark Age while all atheists are actually secretly worshipping the Devil and trying to get us all sent to Hell. In short, everyone who opposes me in any way is either evil, stupid or both and rapes baby squirrels besides.
This is the cancer that's killing anything resembling rational thought in politics.
Actually no, it isn't at all simple. For example, if some pedophile masturbates to pictures of me in a bath as a baby, he's clearly finding them sexually exciting, and thus pornographic, yet I was not harmed in the least by either them being taken or by his activities about them later. And as this case shows, since the law defines everything under 18 as "child pornography", and since teenagers under this are already sexually aware and often active, we get to the situation where laws that were presumably intended to protect kids from predators are used against people interacting with their peers, or even photographing themselves.
As an end result, we have laws based on oversimplification of someone's wistful thoughts about reality where everyone under 18 is a "pure, innocent child" and things like "pornography" can be defined. Such a world has never existed and will never exist, yet we're enforcing laws based on it and harming the very people they were supposed to protect in the process.
Of course I'm making a rather huge assumption here: that the lawmaker was merely incompetent, rather than outright malevolent. However, my more cynical side agrees with your assessment that this is all going according to their will...
That won't work. That standard is just ripe for abuse than the standard of right and wrong. Once upon a time, when women were struggling for a vote, one of the arguments against it was that it would "sully" them with politics, thus violating their "right" to be pure. This would simply lead to similar arguments used to justify abuse, all in the name of protecting the victim of course.
You can't come up with any kind of principle that power-hungry people couldn't twist to serve as an excuse to lord it over other people. It's just not possible.
KKK is out, GNAA is in ?-)
Burn, karma, burn !
Seeing how the whole point was to get away from the office, a loss would be victory ;).
It's not like you touch the garbage with your bare hands; in fact some of the more advanced truck models nowadays don't even require you to leave the cabin. The only real bad side to that job is having to drive in insanely tight spaces, but that's what insurance is for ;). And for the same reason you are unlikely to be fired without a good reason, since giving a $100,000+ truck to an new employee is always risky.
I'd be more worried about mass panic. Suppose someone blows a smoke bomb, or something else flashy but harmless, and then yells: "Terrorists ! It's a chemical weapon ! Run for your lives !" ? It wouldn't be pretty.
You have lots of people afraid of terrorists in a ceremony that has a bullseye painted all over it. If someone farts too loudly, it's going to be a bloodbath.
Cut open the horse, crawl inside, and sleep in the sweet warmth of its guts. Or was this before Empire Strikes Back came out ?-)
Besides, back in my day we didn't have any horses. We had to travel to Japan, find a samurai and beat him up with our bare hands so he would commit seppuku. And we were glad to have hands !
If she's willing to have sex for money, wouldn't it be far more profitable to simply become an outright prostitute ? Or would that violate a non-compete agreement ? Coming to think of it, if you'd repel the anti-pimping laws, the firm with the cutest receptionists could get a competitive advantage and some extra revenue; and just think of the possibilities for rising employee morale !-) The employee of the month could get use of said receptionist / HR personnel morale consultant for free for a month, and...
Hmm... I think I need to go out more ;).
Easy to manipulate - by, for example, recommending wrong guides to them ?-) Or did you want me to think that they are wrong guides to keep me away from them ? Or did you want me to think that you want me to think...
It kinda makes me wish that I could get a job as a garbage truck driver or something else that involves no office politics.
With 50 applicants to every position, I'd say that 6 months is quite an optimistic estimate for getting a new job. In fact unless you are independently wealthy and can live without working infinitely, it is not a good idea to leave a job, ever.
Unless, as they say, this world is just a beta version of Hell. No, wait, if we go by D&D rules, Hell would be communism/fascism, while laissez-faire capitalism would be Abyss.