Good for him. Have you been to the library lately? Just try to get some work done on a computer there during the first few hours after school lets out. Every computer is some punk 15 year old on MySpace. Let's get library computers doing what they should be doing: helping people with legitimate research. Not helping emo kids whine about their girlfriends.
The public computers in a public library exist for the public to use. The 15-yeard old emo kid is a member of public just as much as you are; his use of the computer to whine about his girlfriend online is every bit as legitimate as your research. There is no reason whatsoever why your definition of legitimate use or your needs should take precedence over anyone else's when allocating public resources.
Besides, didn't you just use whatever computer you posted from to post a whine to a social networking site ? If it was a public computer, you're a hypocrite; if it was your personal computer, why do you not use it to do your research instead of using the library's machine ?
IAAL - I Am A Librarian. And sick and tired of dealing with people who think their convenience takes precedence over everyone else's. And even more sick and tired of people who think everyone but them and the people they know personally are an anonymous mass of "emo kids", "hooligans", "niggers", or $DERAGATORY_TERM, and can and in fact should therefore be treated as second-class people who can be given service once the Real People are done with their Important Business.
Guess what: the emo kid couldn't care less about your research, so why shouldn't I ban you from the computer for his benefit instead ?
Then ask a friend who knows or even one who's a specialist.
How does your friend know it ? How can you know his knowledge didn't come from viral marketing ? How do you know the specialist is actually a genuine specialist and not a cleverly placed viral marketeer, and if he is a specialist, that he hasn't been bribed ?
If you want a new PC, ask someone who knows those things, etc.
How do you know he isn't getting paid to recommend Dell or some other crappy brand ? And how do you know I'm not getting paid to say bad things about Dell every chance I get ?-)
The tendency, of course, should be to educate yourSELF, so you can know more on your own.
How can you educate yourself when you have no way of telling truthful sources from viral marketing ?
Some people like being stupid, and serves them right.
Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Besides that, if you have no way to know which sources to trust, you have no way to get rid of that ignorance. That is the problem with viral marketing.
It seems so, but TFA was lacking in details on one area (but perhaps it is my lack of knowledge) - weren't they first convicted by a jury of their peers? If so, then shouldn't we be wondering why they did so? Very odd.
The cynic in me says that the jury was really not made of their peers but of middle-aged people who wanted to make examples of these two to send a message to their own kids. That, or religious fundamentalists. In either case, what's a few innocent lives destroyed if it prevents someone from having sex, eh ? Another victory for the forces of purity, right ?
And in any case, merely being accused of this is enough to get them marked sex offenders for life no matter what the judge or the jury says, isn't it ? So can as well go all the way, they are as good as dead anyway...
I bet you that no country would tolerate it if you handed out leaflets calling for a Coup d'Etat.
I bet you it would.
"And, if any man should advocate the dissolution of this union, let him stand free and unmolested as an example of how even the most egregious error of reason can be tolerated in a free society." (Thomas Jefferson)
I seem to recall something called the Confederacy, an alliance of US states that tried to secede from the union, and how they were forcibly reintegrated to it. So it seems that Mr. Jefferson's words are, in the end, nice but impotent words.
Or, as the countrymen of Mr. Jefferson like to say it, "just a goddamn piece of paper".
When someone disobeys an authority, that authority has two choices: force its will or lose its power (and thereby cease being an authority). Authorities that choose the latter option are short-lived. That's why most authority entities are so hellbent on staying in power and utterly immoral in their methods of doing so: it's evolution on action.
So no, no country will tolerate you calling for overthrow of the government, not if you have a significant chance of success. Either you'll be arrested or you'll have an accident or you simply disappear, but something will be done to halt you.
I'm still amazed at the size and complexity of office related programs.
You shouldn't be, really. After all, it's perfectly logical. The number of features is a selling argument for a word processor that needs to compete not only against other products but also its own earlier versions. That's why the number of features - and thus complexity - can only ever grow.
What I'd like to see is something completely different, a document making system that would cleanly separate content and presentation, a bit like LyX but with a nice graphical editor for creating and editing the document classes instead of having to manuall edit (La)TeX files. That would be a truly remarkable improvement over the glorified typewriters we have today.
For extra credits, make the presentation work like CSS in that you could use per-document internal templates or external ones, and integrate the whole thing so it works with CVS or similar version control system - it would be very nice to have different people working on the content of different chapters at the same time while the graphical designer works with the look of the document.
And of course it should create good-quality PDF files. And have good-quality SVG import (altought that is propably too much to ask for; better be thankful if basic paths will get imported in a somewhat recognizable form, at least according to my experience with various programs).
Your little "joke" costs real money. The extra staff time required to resort and reinventory a medium-size bookstore is at least several thousand dollars. Just like keying cars, slashing tires, breaking windows, smashing mailboxes, etc., it's called being an asshole.
Surely your realize that the staff would have to reinventory the store anyway to see if anything was stolen when they realize that they didn't lock the doors, even if no one visited ? And I can't really believe that it takes much time to rearrange the books back to their rightful places; after all, it takes just as much effort for the kid to move a book in the first place than it takes to move it back, so he can't have moved all that many of them.
Slashing tires and the other acts of vandalism you listed cause actual measurable and hard to reverse physical harm to someone's property and thus have nothing to do with either this example or the MySpace worm case.
The "people in the system" understand technology far better than this kid. They understand that there are real people running these systems whose time is valuable, and when some idiot delinquent thinks he's being funny, he's the only one laughing.
Actually, no. The time of a sysadmin who is dimwitted enough not to notice a security hole some teen punk noticed and exploited is not valuable. In fact it is not worth paying anything for.
Three-year sentence, probationary or not, is too much for being an idiot delinquent. A proper punishment for this kind of thing is writing a "I will think what I'm doing even on the Internet" to a blackboard a hundred times over, or spending a week doing community service, or whatever. Probation implies threat of prison, and prison is for criminals, not idiot delinquents, no matter how much some sysadmin too lazy or too stupid to do his work properly or some company too cheap to hire a competent sysadmin were inconvenienced by that delinquency.
As much as it's meant as a joke it's actually a pretty cool idea since it's so similar to the original license most arguments regarding the validity of one apply equally to both.
Except the most important: MS, Sony or whatever have vastly more money than you. Therefore they can win any court case against you simply by dragging the case on long enough that you'll go banckrupt, can't defend yourself anymore, lose by default, and spend the rest of your life in poverty and debt. That's why you have to treat EULAs like they had legal validity whether they really do or do not.
Those who pay the lawmakers decide nothing; those who pay the lawyers decide everything. Those who rig the elections decide nothing; those who rig the courts decide everything. Those who are in the right do not win; those who have deep pockets win. And so on, ad nauseaum.
As for the "exploit"... windows will cause your computer to explode if you douse it with gasoline and set it alight too. Should there be a warning label and slashdot story to point that out?
If Windows came with a canister of gasoline and a lighter, then yes, there should.
It's a bit like with ActiveX: letting any website to execute arbitrary code in your machine is a bad idea, no matter what the underlaying OS. But only Windows does it by default.
Assembly optimization is the least of your SPU utilization problems. Just getting code and data to fit is.
But isn't that where hand-optimized assembly really shines ? If you really only have 256kB of RAM, you'll want to forget procedural programming and go with goto's; by hard-coding each variable to a specific memory location can you utilize the tiny memory fully and be absolutely sure there won't be stack overflow.
Each layer of abstraction adds at least a bit overhead, so if resources are tight, strip them all off.
And if you start to talk about why they shouldn't be using Vista, their ears turn off because you are being too technical (no matter how much you try and dumb it down).
"You shouldn't be using Vista, because it won't let you watch porn you downloaded from the Internet for free. It has this thing called DRM which will turn the good good parts to mosaic. We technical people call this downsampling. Oh, and it may even connect to Microsoft or the police and tell them what you're watching."
While the price tag is enormous (around +$200,000 USD), it would be one in a lifetime for you to see outer space, and not to mention the "dancing lights" aurora borealis Mr Jazzizle mentioned.
Since I'm not even thirty yet, I'm kinda hoping that I'll be able to buy a trip to to the Moon to celebrate my retirement for $200.
Does anyone know of any fundrisings for "X-Price 2: Low Earth Orbit" or something similar where I could invest some of my meager income to make this happen ?
How much praise was adorned on Linux when it got an O(1) scheduler? NT has had it for over a decade.
Yes. A round robin scheduler, which runs every task for exactly 2 clock ticks except for foreground tasks which are run for 6 (or is this an XP improvement ?) - assuming there's no interrupts occurring during those ticks, of course - and not paying any attention to whether the task is IO- or CPU-bound. It performs absolutely shitty if you have anything heavy running in the background (say, POV-Ray rendering an image while you try to browse the Net). Praising that to be "O(1) scheduler" is about the same as calling the Goatse picture "art": sure, it may be technically true, but...
What Linux was praised was getting a scheduler that handles 40 priority levels, real-time tasks, and multiple CPUs (500+, in some cases) while retaining both interactivity and high throughput, and doing all this in O(1) time. No version of Windows has ever gotten even close.
with NFS being connectionless or sessionless or stateless or something (I forget the word used)
From what I've understood, the designers very much wanted it to be stateless, but since file systems are inherently stateful they had to add in things like
lockd ,
externalizing the state and allowing them to claim that the core protocol is technically stateless, in the same way as Clinton didn't technically have sex with Lewinsky. So I guess the word you're thinking is
schizophrenic .
I can understand this, but do disagree; you should never have a process on your own system that you cannot kill. The left open locks issue could easily be resolved by updating the server on closed connections on reconnect etc,
The problem with this is that either the server keeps the lock until the client reconnects (leading to unkillable processes in the server) or it opens it and relocks it on client reconnect, in which case the program performing IO will think that the file has stayed locked (and unchanged) during the IO operation, when in reality this may not be true.
and these days with other network filesystems like CIFS, and removable media (linux ready for the desktop?) reads shouldn't expect to always be able to resume.
I suppose. But that would force people to handle I/O errors in their programs, and frankly, after seeing how they seem unable to handle even simple bounds checking, I don't think they can.
Be done with what? The arguing over whether or not we should have the domain. Once we get it, I'd bet most of the pr0n will move there for "prestige" reasons, and most new adult sites will be there. In the long run, I can't see what possible harm it can do to let them have their tld.
The harm for me is simple: I draw. Being a young male, many of those drawings have not-completely-dressed women in them. If I ever want to put them up to a gallery online, will I have to pay extra to get an.XXX domain ? After all, we must save the children from the horrors of naked breasts, so I just know a law will be passed making it criminal to have them anywhere except under the.XXX domain.
And for that matter, where does a site talking about breast cancer go ? It is likely to have pictures of naked breasts on it for obvious reasons. Or a sexual education site ? Or pretty much any site that even hints about anything that could be connected to sexuality ?
This drive to gather "porn" under its own domain is not just porn industry's problem, it's everyone's problem. I, for one, do not want to make it any easier for various malicious assholes with delusions of grandieur, righteousness or divine mandate to practice censorship than it already is.
Google only caches HTML and possibly other formats that they can index (PDF, Word DOC, Powerpoint, etc). They don't cache images.
Actually, they cache image thumbnails. Granted, that's propably not sufficient to make the key from... But at least I found this gem from this page. Should help drive the message home to the people who don't see a problem with unverifiable electronic voting... Assuming that they know who Josef Stalin was, which, since this is the American public we're speaking of, might be an unreasonable expectation.
Maybe something simpler, like: "When you're voting with Diebold machines, you're voting for communism." Good enough for the old RIAA poster, good enough for this.
Then just project that down so you're only considering a 1-dimensional space and you get this -->.
Except a point isn't 1-dimensional space, it's zero-dimensional space. 1-dimensional space is a line:
-----
See ? A single coordinate is enough to indicate a position in the line, just like 2 coordinates are enough to indicate a position in a 2D surface and 3 coordinates in 3D space. But in a point, there's only one possible location, so you don't need any coordinates at all, therefore it's 0-dimensional space.
You are applying an artificial qualifier by defining-away treason by using a law dictionary definition of the word. It is a common and understandable mistake that people make - applying specialized definitions outside the specialized field. The law dictionary definitions you quote do not apply to non-legal situations. They are technical, specialized definitions to be applied only to the practice of law. If we were in court and GP was a prosecutor bringing charges against Gonzales you would be right - he would be performing an end-run around the Constitution. But we are not in court. This is not a legal proceeding. This is an opinion forum.
The post I originally answered to was answering to a post which quoted the relevant part of US Constitution (the legal definition of treason). The OP's answer was to declare AG the enemy, to make him fit that definition. That was the context of this particular exchange, and what I was answering to; I was simply pointing out that the OP was attempting to reinterpret the law to his liking, in other words, do "an end run around the Constitution", which was what he accused AG of doing.
Basically, I wasn't arguing about AG's guilt or innocence; I was merely trying to point out that the OP did the exact same thing he accused AG of doing.
By admitting that the the AG (and thus, the poster) was "...reinterpreting your Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean." you admit treason by the AG. He has no constitutional power to interpret the constitution. He also is aiding the enemy (in this case, the terrorists) with his illegal re-interpreting of the constitution by inducing fear into the population for the purpose of changing the current political climate.
If this is not treason, what is?
According to US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
AG hasn't waged war against the US (unless you wish to consider this a "War on Constitution";), and hasn't given aid and comfort to terrorists or other such enemies. Therefore, he is not guilty of treason. He is very likely guilty of abusing his position of power, of course, but that isn't sufficient to make him guilty of treason before law.
However, you cannot classify the poster's comments as treason.
I haven't. I've only said that he's doing the same thing as he accused AG of doing: trying to twist the US Constitution to his own ends.
The AG took an oath to office to protect the constitution. This is not just another case of not upholding your oath of office. It is a case of directly going AGAINST your oath of office for political gain. This is by definition the enemy of the United States. Actively breaking his oath rather than passively not doing his job, he is the enemy.
The common definition of "enemy" is someone who's trying to do you harm. AG is not doing so. He believes he is acting in the best interests of the US. He is wrong, of course, but that merely makes him incompetent, not malicious.
In another post you claim that the poster is also committing treason by reinterpreting the constitution, but this cannot be so because he is not in the position to commit treason by abusing his power to uphold the constitution.
I haven't claimed any such thing. I have simply claimed that the poster is doing the same thing, an "end run around the Constitution" he accuses AG of doing.
Finally, your claim that the poster is reinterpreting the constitution is really not all that true anyway. The only test would be to go back in time and ask the dead people who wrote it. The next best thing, a test in the SCOTUS, will never happen because nobody in power has the balls to indict the AG for his actions.
I'm a bit uncertain what you're trying to say here.
And by trying to broaden the definition of treason with semantic tricks like this, you are doing the exact same thing
And with this comment, you have admitted the argument and lost all credibility in your argument.
Pray tell, what is this argument I've supposedly lost, and why have I lost it ? All I have done is point out that the GP is doing an "end-run around the Constitution", which is what he accused Alberto of doing. Perhaps you could show me my alleged mistake, so I might learn from it; I'm afraid simply bolding some text of my original message doesn't quite show me the mistake you claim I've made ?
Oh, and please learn to use the <blockquote> tag. While putting quotation marks around quoted text may seem cute, it isn't the right way of doing things.
There are certain things this country stands for that from time to time people, like our friend Alberto, fight against. Unless this country stands for them, it is not the same country we consider America.
Be that as it may, it still doesn't change the fact that GP tried to broaden the definition of crime "treason", or to use his own words, attempted to do an end-run around US Constitution. Getting around requirements of accusing someone of treason by declaring him the "enemy" is really no different than Bush declaring someone "enemy combatant" or "suspected terrorist"; in both cases the rule of law has been suspended for a twisted mockery of it.
In other words, the GP fits his own definition of being enemy.
I don't think he's using semantic tricks. I think you're not understanding what the GP is talking about. I certainly don't blame him for considering it treason.
GP is free to consider it treason; I agree, in fact - perverting the law you've sworn to uphold is certainly treasonous. However, we are talking about the crime of treason, something you can be judged in a court for. Treason is defined in US Constitution as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". The GP tried to get around that definition by declaring Alberto enemy; it was a purposeful effort to get the treason clause to apply to someone it doesn't, in other words, pervert the US Constitution. Which is what he accused Alberto of doing.
It is hypocritical to judge people for yielding to temptation you can't resist yourself. The GP did so. That was my point.
To be fair... 100% of Windows Installs has stolen code from BSD.
Yes. But Microsoft is safe from being sued by them because, well, would you want anyone to know there's your code in Windows ?-) Especially if you advertize your product on their security and reliability ?
<psychological_warfare>Mod me down if you're a Windows fanboy or a Microsoft astroturfer...</psychological_warfare>
When Alberto attempts to do an end-run around the Constitution, he becomes the enemy, like a fifth column, and is certainly "giving them Aid and Comfort"
And by trying to broaden the definition of treason with semantic tricks like this, you are doing the exact same thing: reinterpreting your Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean.
Slashdot Mirror
The public computers in a public library exist for the public to use. The 15-yeard old emo kid is a member of public just as much as you are; his use of the computer to whine about his girlfriend online is every bit as legitimate as your research. There is no reason whatsoever why your definition of legitimate use or your needs should take precedence over anyone else's when allocating public resources.
Besides, didn't you just use whatever computer you posted from to post a whine to a social networking site ? If it was a public computer, you're a hypocrite; if it was your personal computer, why do you not use it to do your research instead of using the library's machine ?
IAAL - I Am A Librarian. And sick and tired of dealing with people who think their convenience takes precedence over everyone else's. And even more sick and tired of people who think everyone but them and the people they know personally are an anonymous mass of "emo kids", "hooligans", "niggers", or $DERAGATORY_TERM, and can and in fact should therefore be treated as second-class people who can be given service once the Real People are done with their Important Business.
Guess what: the emo kid couldn't care less about your research, so why shouldn't I ban you from the computer for his benefit instead ?
How does your friend know it ? How can you know his knowledge didn't come from viral marketing ? How do you know the specialist is actually a genuine specialist and not a cleverly placed viral marketeer, and if he is a specialist, that he hasn't been bribed ?
How do you know he isn't getting paid to recommend Dell or some other crappy brand ? And how do you know I'm not getting paid to say bad things about Dell every chance I get ?-)
How can you educate yourself when you have no way of telling truthful sources from viral marketing ?
Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Besides that, if you have no way to know which sources to trust, you have no way to get rid of that ignorance. That is the problem with viral marketing.
The cynic in me says that the jury was really not made of their peers but of middle-aged people who wanted to make examples of these two to send a message to their own kids. That, or religious fundamentalists. In either case, what's a few innocent lives destroyed if it prevents someone from having sex, eh ? Another victory for the forces of purity, right ?
And in any case, merely being accused of this is enough to get them marked sex offenders for life no matter what the judge or the jury says, isn't it ? So can as well go all the way, they are as good as dead anyway...
I seem to recall something called the Confederacy, an alliance of US states that tried to secede from the union, and how they were forcibly reintegrated to it. So it seems that Mr. Jefferson's words are, in the end, nice but impotent words.
Or, as the countrymen of Mr. Jefferson like to say it, "just a goddamn piece of paper".
When someone disobeys an authority, that authority has two choices: force its will or lose its power (and thereby cease being an authority). Authorities that choose the latter option are short-lived. That's why most authority entities are so hellbent on staying in power and utterly immoral in their methods of doing so: it's evolution on action.
So no, no country will tolerate you calling for overthrow of the government, not if you have a significant chance of success. Either you'll be arrested or you'll have an accident or you simply disappear, but something will be done to halt you.
You shouldn't be, really. After all, it's perfectly logical. The number of features is a selling argument for a word processor that needs to compete not only against other products but also its own earlier versions. That's why the number of features - and thus complexity - can only ever grow.
What I'd like to see is something completely different, a document making system that would cleanly separate content and presentation, a bit like LyX but with a nice graphical editor for creating and editing the document classes instead of having to manuall edit (La)TeX files. That would be a truly remarkable improvement over the glorified typewriters we have today.
For extra credits, make the presentation work like CSS in that you could use per-document internal templates or external ones, and integrate the whole thing so it works with CVS or similar version control system - it would be very nice to have different people working on the content of different chapters at the same time while the graphical designer works with the look of the document.
And of course it should create good-quality PDF files. And have good-quality SVG import (altought that is propably too much to ask for; better be thankful if basic paths will get imported in a somewhat recognizable form, at least according to my experience with various programs).
Surely your realize that the staff would have to reinventory the store anyway to see if anything was stolen when they realize that they didn't lock the doors, even if no one visited ? And I can't really believe that it takes much time to rearrange the books back to their rightful places; after all, it takes just as much effort for the kid to move a book in the first place than it takes to move it back, so he can't have moved all that many of them.
Slashing tires and the other acts of vandalism you listed cause actual measurable and hard to reverse physical harm to someone's property and thus have nothing to do with either this example or the MySpace worm case.
Actually, no. The time of a sysadmin who is dimwitted enough not to notice a security hole some teen punk noticed and exploited is not valuable. In fact it is not worth paying anything for.
Three-year sentence, probationary or not, is too much for being an idiot delinquent. A proper punishment for this kind of thing is writing a "I will think what I'm doing even on the Internet" to a blackboard a hundred times over, or spending a week doing community service, or whatever. Probation implies threat of prison, and prison is for criminals, not idiot delinquents, no matter how much some sysadmin too lazy or too stupid to do his work properly or some company too cheap to hire a competent sysadmin were inconvenienced by that delinquency.
Except the most important: MS, Sony or whatever have vastly more money than you. Therefore they can win any court case against you simply by dragging the case on long enough that you'll go banckrupt, can't defend yourself anymore, lose by default, and spend the rest of your life in poverty and debt. That's why you have to treat EULAs like they had legal validity whether they really do or do not.
Those who pay the lawmakers decide nothing; those who pay the lawyers decide everything. Those who rig the elections decide nothing; those who rig the courts decide everything. Those who are in the right do not win; those who have deep pockets win. And so on, ad nauseaum.
If Windows came with a canister of gasoline and a lighter, then yes, there should.
It's a bit like with ActiveX: letting any website to execute arbitrary code in your machine is a bad idea, no matter what the underlaying OS. But only Windows does it by default.
But isn't that where hand-optimized assembly really shines ? If you really only have 256kB of RAM, you'll want to forget procedural programming and go with goto's; by hard-coding each variable to a specific memory location can you utilize the tiny memory fully and be absolutely sure there won't be stack overflow.
Each layer of abstraction adds at least a bit overhead, so if resources are tight, strip them all off.
"You shouldn't be using Vista, because it won't let you watch porn you downloaded from the Internet for free. It has this thing called DRM which will turn the good good parts to mosaic. We technical people call this downsampling. Oh, and it may even connect to Microsoft or the police and tell them what you're watching."
Since I'm not even thirty yet, I'm kinda hoping that I'll be able to buy a trip to to the Moon to celebrate my retirement for $200.
Does anyone know of any fundrisings for "X-Price 2: Low Earth Orbit" or something similar where I could invest some of my meager income to make this happen ?
True enough. But if it's any consolation, quite a few people have turned into very dead charcoal.
Okay, bad joke. Move along...
Yes. A round robin scheduler, which runs every task for exactly 2 clock ticks except for foreground tasks which are run for 6 (or is this an XP improvement ?) - assuming there's no interrupts occurring during those ticks, of course - and not paying any attention to whether the task is IO- or CPU-bound. It performs absolutely shitty if you have anything heavy running in the background (say, POV-Ray rendering an image while you try to browse the Net). Praising that to be "O(1) scheduler" is about the same as calling the Goatse picture "art": sure, it may be technically true, but...
What Linux was praised was getting a scheduler that handles 40 priority levels, real-time tasks, and multiple CPUs (500+, in some cases) while retaining both interactivity and high throughput, and doing all this in O(1) time. No version of Windows has ever gotten even close.
From what I've understood, the designers very much wanted it to be stateless, but since file systems are inherently stateful they had to add in things like
lockd , externalizing the state and allowing them to claim that the core protocol is technically stateless, in the same way as Clinton didn't technically have sex with Lewinsky. So I guess the word you're thinking is schizophrenic .The problem with this is that either the server keeps the lock until the client reconnects (leading to unkillable processes in the server) or it opens it and relocks it on client reconnect, in which case the program performing IO will think that the file has stayed locked (and unchanged) during the IO operation, when in reality this may not be true.
I suppose. But that would force people to handle I/O errors in their programs, and frankly, after seeing how they seem unable to handle even simple bounds checking, I don't think they can.
Since winds are usually caused by heat differences in various parts of atmosphere, the question remains: where does the heat come from ?
The harm for me is simple: I draw. Being a young male, many of those drawings have not-completely-dressed women in them. If I ever want to put them up to a gallery online, will I have to pay extra to get an .XXX domain ? After all, we must save the children from the horrors of naked breasts, so I just know a law will be passed making it criminal to have them anywhere except under the .XXX domain.
And for that matter, where does a site talking about breast cancer go ? It is likely to have pictures of naked breasts on it for obvious reasons. Or a sexual education site ? Or pretty much any site that even hints about anything that could be connected to sexuality ?
This drive to gather "porn" under its own domain is not just porn industry's problem, it's everyone's problem. I, for one, do not want to make it any easier for various malicious assholes with delusions of grandieur, righteousness or divine mandate to practice censorship than it already is.
Actually, they cache image thumbnails. Granted, that's propably not sufficient to make the key from... But at least I found this gem from this page. Should help drive the message home to the people who don't see a problem with unverifiable electronic voting... Assuming that they know who Josef Stalin was, which, since this is the American public we're speaking of, might be an unreasonable expectation.
Maybe something simpler, like: "When you're voting with Diebold machines, you're voting for communism." Good enough for the old RIAA poster, good enough for this.
It means that they are on the way to destruction and have no chance to survive, so they should make their time for great justice.
In the (sqrt(-1))th dimension.
The post I originally answered to was answering to a post which quoted the relevant part of US Constitution (the legal definition of treason). The OP's answer was to declare AG the enemy, to make him fit that definition. That was the context of this particular exchange, and what I was answering to; I was simply pointing out that the OP was attempting to reinterpret the law to his liking, in other words, do "an end run around the Constitution", which was what he accused AG of doing.
Basically, I wasn't arguing about AG's guilt or innocence; I was merely trying to point out that the OP did the exact same thing he accused AG of doing.
According to US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
AG hasn't waged war against the US (unless you wish to consider this a "War on Constitution" ;), and hasn't given aid and comfort to terrorists or other such enemies. Therefore, he is not guilty of treason. He is very likely guilty of abusing his position of power, of course, but that isn't sufficient to make him guilty of treason before law.
I haven't. I've only said that he's doing the same thing as he accused AG of doing: trying to twist the US Constitution to his own ends.
The common definition of "enemy" is someone who's trying to do you harm. AG is not doing so. He believes he is acting in the best interests of the US. He is wrong, of course, but that merely makes him incompetent, not malicious.
I haven't claimed any such thing. I have simply claimed that the poster is doing the same thing, an "end run around the Constitution" he accuses AG of doing.
I'm a bit uncertain what you're trying to say here.
Pray tell, what is this argument I've supposedly lost, and why have I lost it ? All I have done is point out that the GP is doing an "end-run around the Constitution", which is what he accused Alberto of doing. Perhaps you could show me my alleged mistake, so I might learn from it; I'm afraid simply bolding some text of my original message doesn't quite show me the mistake you claim I've made ?
Oh, and please learn to use the <blockquote> tag. While putting quotation marks around quoted text may seem cute, it isn't the right way of doing things.
Be that as it may, it still doesn't change the fact that GP tried to broaden the definition of crime "treason", or to use his own words, attempted to do an end-run around US Constitution. Getting around requirements of accusing someone of treason by declaring him the "enemy" is really no different than Bush declaring someone "enemy combatant" or "suspected terrorist"; in both cases the rule of law has been suspended for a twisted mockery of it.
In other words, the GP fits his own definition of being enemy.
GP is free to consider it treason; I agree, in fact - perverting the law you've sworn to uphold is certainly treasonous. However, we are talking about the crime of treason, something you can be judged in a court for. Treason is defined in US Constitution as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". The GP tried to get around that definition by declaring Alberto enemy; it was a purposeful effort to get the treason clause to apply to someone it doesn't, in other words, pervert the US Constitution. Which is what he accused Alberto of doing.
It is hypocritical to judge people for yielding to temptation you can't resist yourself. The GP did so. That was my point.
Yes. But Microsoft is safe from being sued by them because, well, would you want anyone to know there's your code in Windows ?-) Especially if you advertize your product on their security and reliability ?
<psychological_warfare>Mod me down if you're a Windows fanboy or a Microsoft astroturfer...</psychological_warfare>
And by trying to broaden the definition of treason with semantic tricks like this, you are doing the exact same thing: reinterpreting your Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean.