The concept of "defending oneself within nature" is a tricky one. There is a quite good historical and legal review of the concept at https://www.americanbar.org/pu... .
I'm afraid that it's become a common code prase for what Locke and Hobbes proposed, a "a primitive and dangerous world in which each person could use deadly force whenever they judged it necessary". The difficulty with the pholosophy is that one of the first reactions of the inhabitants would be to spawn warlords, and guards. The second reaction, that of the warlords and the guards, would be to take the weapons away from everyone else. _That_ is evolution, as well. It's a social rather than biological evolution, but social behavior can be as critical to a species as its DNA.
I suggest to Slashdot readers that limiting access to firearms is part of social evolution, and that we not be confused by ideas that legal approaches are somehow "unnatural".
For most people who see one in action or handle one, the difference between an AR-15 and an assault rifle is the selective fire. While a very useful feature, to most people that difference is a nuance with a weapon capable of such rapid single fire.
Git with submodules solves the _reverse_ problem. One would have to fragment a project into many distinct git repositories, and maintain them each individually with a master project, to allow developers to check out and work on only one small component at a time. To pick out only a small component for local development, one has to pre-separate and activate that one, separate component as a repository and modify the master repository to use submodules.
It's feasible, and I've certainly helped workgroups do that. When a repository grows as large as the mentioned 270G, it's usually well past time to split up components into separate git repositories. And a master git project with git submodules under it may be the only reliable way in git to unify the project and allow subcomponent development to proceed efficiently. But that's a considerable amount of organizational work to achieve, even with a smaller project.
Please be precise about this "incandescent light bulks" operate at thousands of degrees, in Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin. Their shells are at room temperature. The filaments are much hotter when in operation.
For a single git repository, it's quite large. Git's lack of ability to check out, and manage, a single directory of a much larger upstream can be problematic with this.
No, it's not peculiar. Keeping control of a _canonical_ git repository is very useful for a critical security system. It's awkward, but feasible, to link a local, working git repository to multiple upstream repositories such as github, gitlab, or an internal business managed erpository. I've certainly done so and guided technology partners in doing so.
The Dystopians, the Pastafarians, and the United Church of Christ. I don't know the minor or protest religions outside of North America.
The UCC do not take their faith so seriously or devoutly as many other Christian sects. I'd not specifically been seeking their history out, but they seem quite free of the righteous dogma and fervor that have led so many other sects to destructive violence.
I can agree with that article in the Guardian that the extent of plea bargaining worldwide has increased profoundly, inspired by US practices. I can even agree that the degree in US courts is excessive, especially for drug convictions. That doesn't mean it's not a common or expected procedure in other legal systems, nor does it mean that it's not been a common procedure throughout the history of law enforcement. It's related, strongly, to the practice of getting the captured guilty party to turn in their partners in return for immunity, or leniency in sentencing.
> Many countries do not use plea bargaining, and they do all right.
Can you please name any? A quiet discussion with the authorities about which crimes you will be prosecuted for, especially if you cooperate with them to discover other offenders, seems built into even normal law enforcement.
Or wait a few years for the hardware to improve, then run it in virtualization of the Windows system. I provide just that support for Mac users as a policy, to allow them access to Windows specific software.
> Time and again various IoT crapware has proven that it is insecure. The reason for this is simple. Companies making TVs have experience making TVs.
May I differ with your presumption? The reason that IoT "crapware" is insecure is that any security interferes with the commercial purpose of IoT. The desire to share, process, and act on the full IoT is built into most business plans involving IoT. Security _blocks_ that data from being shared with whatever vendor desires that data, making the data less available and less valuable. So any protection for that data either expands the cost and complexity of the product, or makes less of that data available.
> And all the old tricks that every security conscious developer of internet facing computer software knows by now work again. Because the people developing the IoT-Software, i.e. people developing embedded software, have no experience with security issues.
They are often specifically prohibited from protecting or refusing to collect and republish that data by their company's policy and business plans. It's not just a software security problem, it's a deliberate data gather and analysis or resale issue.
When does Bob start writing horrible code, knowing that Margareth will find the bugs and clean it up for him? And when does Bob get the promotion because his code shipped faster, and Margareth's slower developed code fails to be presented early? So Bob gets to go to luch with the boss, go tot the company picnics, and gets invited to design review meetings because "they ship faster"?
I've seen this happen. It's been done to me, as "Margareth" in the story. I eventually had to talk with my manager, from quite a long time ago, and warn that manager what was going to happen to Bob's workflow and code quality when I went on vacation.
Stalking law violations? For checking a public record and reaching out for professional references from mutual acquiantances or former colleagues? That seems extremely unlikely. On what legal basis would this be stalking?
There are other legal risks. Age, gender or other illegal forms of discrimination can be awkward to avoid. But please do not believe for a moment that recruiters, both internal and through contracting agencies, do not engage in precisely this form of review of candidates, both officially and unofficially. Also, please do not believe for a moment that recruiters in technology fields do _not_ engage in bias for age or gender or medical status, at least unofficially.
It's proven an invaluable way to find references an employee may not have chosen to list, and references who you may know personally and are more likely to give an honest evaluation of the employee's work. It can also be a way to gather information that an employer cannot legally ask for, such as medical information, marital status, age, or religion. That data may be illegal to discriminate with, but that doesn't make it less desirable for many companies hiring purposes. Medical expenses or medical history may be illegal to discriminate for, but that makes it no less valuable for controlling costs of medical insurance or medical leave for any company.
It's usable as a meta-analysis of various insider corporate information. As middle and upper management update their resumes before a corporate layoff or merger is announced, it can also indicate which levels of a company have been informed of the upcoming changes in personnel.
I've certainly seen high level bureaucratic and security staff take data home on private media. I've even seen them insist that security costs more than it gains, and refuse to protect the backup media, or deliberately make personal copies of critical data because getting past the encryptions and security at work is too much effort.
Yesterday, on the local channel that caries NPR and BBC. They still carry interesting interviews and, when they can, relevant news. I'm quite impressed with them and regularly put in a small contribution, though under a name and with credentials that protect me from the deluge of fundraising requests.
You've mentioned some of the reasons I did not call it a _successful_ impeachment. The case did involve the _politics_ of impeachment. Part of the point I was trying to make is that he killed thousands but was charged on relatively trivial grounds, grounds that offended the sensibilities of Congress and were exposed to the voting American public. I considered his illegal attacks on Cambodia to be far worse offenses because of the deaths of thousands. But as your point about Cambodia attacks outlines, there was no political will to charge him for those impeachable offenses.
> Is that drop due to nuclear weapons or Europe's determination not to repeat the same mistakes?
Both. As I understand it, Stalin was eager to raid Europe for political and economic resources. What was left of Europe's military and economy would have had difficulty fighting off the Soviet army in the decades after WW II. The presence of American and ongoing development of European nation's nuclear weaponry, capable of striking Moscow, was a very strong deterrent against Soviet wars of invasion.
I'm old enough to remember, very well, the politics of the impeachment of President Nixon. The man was more competent, politically, than President Trump. But he was _lethally_ dangerous to thousands in southeast Asia with illegal attacks against Cambodia, and corrupt in abuse of Vietnam protesters, both of those grounds for impeachment before the discover of illegal taping in the White House and abuse of political opponents exposed at the Watergate Hotel.
The point learned there is that impeachment of a dangerous leader is feasible. But it takes exposure of a criminal offense that Congress is willing to investigate. We've had other treats of impeachment in my lifetime: it would take President Trump doing something not only blatantly criminal, but something that offended Congress sufficiently.
The cell phone services, mapping services, and various vendor profiling tools already have identifiable information of your phone number, your cell phone SIM ID and your MAC address. See https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/... for some sense off the variety of tracking information already shared by portable devices.
Fingerprints are easily forged. The excellent paper http://web.mit.edu/6.857/OldSt... covered the issue 15 years ago and remains valid with even the best modern fingerprint scanners.
> It is an interesting argument. Does the reporting of his crime in any way help the public?
Yes. It informs potential investors, or clients, that this CEO is going to be distracted by criminal proceedings and is going to have large personal expenses.
Slashdot Mirror
They are deaths by gun violence. They're also more likely to kill others in the process. Why wouldn't you count them?
The concept of "defending oneself within nature" is a tricky one. There is a quite good historical and legal review of the concept at https://www.americanbar.org/pu... .
I'm afraid that it's become a common code prase for what Locke and Hobbes proposed, a "a primitive and dangerous world in which each person could use deadly force whenever they judged it necessary". The difficulty with the pholosophy is that one of the first reactions of the inhabitants would be to spawn warlords, and guards. The second reaction, that of the warlords and the guards, would be to take the weapons away from everyone else. _That_ is evolution, as well. It's a social rather than biological evolution, but social behavior can be as critical to a species as its DNA.
I suggest to Slashdot readers that limiting access to firearms is part of social evolution, and that we not be confused by ideas that legal approaches are somehow "unnatural".
For most people who see one in action or handle one, the difference between an AR-15 and an assault rifle is the selective fire. While a very useful feature, to most people that difference is a nuance with a weapon capable of such rapid single fire.
Git with submodules solves the _reverse_ problem. One would have to fragment a project into many distinct git repositories, and maintain them each individually with a master project, to allow developers to check out and work on only one small component at a time. To pick out only a small component for local development, one has to pre-separate and activate that one, separate component as a repository and modify the master repository to use submodules.
It's feasible, and I've certainly helped workgroups do that. When a repository grows as large as the mentioned 270G, it's usually well past time to split up components into separate git repositories. And a master git project with git submodules under it may be the only reliable way in git to unify the project and allow subcomponent development to proceed efficiently. But that's a considerable amount of organizational work to achieve, even with a smaller project.
Please be precise about this "incandescent light bulks" operate at thousands of degrees, in Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin. Their shells are at room temperature. The filaments are much hotter when in operation.
For a single git repository, it's quite large. Git's lack of ability to check out, and manage, a single directory of a much larger upstream can be problematic with this.
No, it's not peculiar. Keeping control of a _canonical_ git repository is very useful for a critical security system. It's awkward, but feasible, to link a local, working git repository to multiple upstream repositories such as github, gitlab, or an internal business managed erpository. I've certainly done so and guided technology partners in doing so.
The Dystopians, the Pastafarians, and the United Church of Christ. I don't know the minor or protest religions outside of North America.
The UCC do not take their faith so seriously or devoutly as many other Christian sects. I'd not specifically been seeking their history out, but they seem quite free of the righteous dogma and fervor that have led so many other sects to destructive violence.
I can agree with that article in the Guardian that the extent of plea bargaining worldwide has increased profoundly, inspired by US practices. I can even agree that the degree in US courts is excessive, especially for drug convictions. That doesn't mean it's not a common or expected procedure in other legal systems, nor does it mean that it's not been a common procedure throughout the history of law enforcement. It's related, strongly, to the practice of getting the captured guilty party to turn in their partners in return for immunity, or leniency in sentencing.
> Many countries do not use plea bargaining, and they do all right.
Can you please name any? A quiet discussion with the authorities about which crimes you will be prosecuted for, especially if you cooperate with them to discover other offenders, seems built into even normal law enforcement.
Or wait a few years for the hardware to improve, then run it in virtualization of the Windows system. I provide just that support for Mac users as a policy, to allow them access to Windows specific software.
> Time and again various IoT crapware has proven that it is insecure. The reason for this is simple. Companies making TVs have experience making TVs.
May I differ with your presumption? The reason that IoT "crapware" is insecure is that any security interferes with the commercial purpose of IoT. The desire to share, process, and act on the full IoT is built into most business plans involving IoT. Security _blocks_ that data from being shared with whatever vendor desires that data, making the data less available and less valuable. So any protection for that data either expands the cost and complexity of the product, or makes less of that data available.
> And all the old tricks that every security conscious developer of internet facing computer software knows by now work again. Because the people developing the IoT-Software, i.e. people developing embedded software, have no experience with security issues.
They are often specifically prohibited from protecting or refusing to collect and republish that data by their company's policy and business plans. It's not just a software security problem, it's a deliberate data gather and analysis or resale issue.
When does Bob start writing horrible code, knowing that Margareth will find the bugs and clean it up for him? And when does Bob get the promotion because his code shipped faster, and Margareth's slower developed code fails to be presented early? So Bob gets to go to luch with the boss, go tot the company picnics, and gets invited to design review meetings because "they ship faster"?
I've seen this happen. It's been done to me, as "Margareth" in the story. I eventually had to talk with my manager, from quite a long time ago, and warn that manager what was going to happen to Bob's workflow and code quality when I went on vacation.
Stalking law violations? For checking a public record and reaching out for professional references from mutual acquiantances or former colleagues? That seems extremely unlikely. On what legal basis would this be stalking?
There are other legal risks. Age, gender or other illegal forms of discrimination can be awkward to avoid. But please do not believe for a moment that recruiters, both internal and through contracting agencies, do not engage in precisely this form of review of candidates, both officially and unofficially. Also, please do not believe for a moment that recruiters in technology fields do _not_ engage in bias for age or gender or medical status, at least unofficially.
It's proven an invaluable way to find references an employee may not have chosen to list, and references who you may know personally and are more likely to give an honest evaluation of the employee's work. It can also be a way to gather information that an employer cannot legally ask for, such as medical information, marital status, age, or religion. That data may be illegal to discriminate with, but that doesn't make it less desirable for many companies hiring purposes. Medical expenses or medical history may be illegal to discriminate for, but that makes it no less valuable for controlling costs of medical insurance or medical leave for any company.
It's usable as a meta-analysis of various insider corporate information. As middle and upper management update their resumes before a corporate layoff or merger is announced, it can also indicate which levels of a company have been informed of the upcoming changes in personnel.
Especially with these on the market:
> http://www.popularmechanics.co...
I've certainly seen high level bureaucratic and security staff take data home on private media. I've even seen them insist that security costs more than it gains, and refuse to protect the backup media, or deliberately make personal copies of critical data because getting past the encryptions and security at work is too much effort.
Yesterday, on the local channel that caries NPR and BBC. They still carry interesting interviews and, when they can, relevant news. I'm quite impressed with them and regularly put in a small contribution, though under a name and with credentials that protect me from the deluge of fundraising requests.
You've mentioned some of the reasons I did not call it a _successful_ impeachment. The case did involve the _politics_ of impeachment. Part of the point I was trying to make is that he killed thousands but was charged on relatively trivial grounds, grounds that offended the sensibilities of Congress and were exposed to the voting American public. I considered his illegal attacks on Cambodia to be far worse offenses because of the deaths of thousands. But as your point about Cambodia attacks outlines, there was no political will to charge him for those impeachable offenses.
> Is that drop due to nuclear weapons or Europe's determination not to repeat the same mistakes?
Both. As I understand it, Stalin was eager to raid Europe for political and economic resources. What was left of Europe's military and economy would have had difficulty fighting off the Soviet army in the decades after WW II. The presence of American and ongoing development of European nation's nuclear weaponry, capable of striking Moscow, was a very strong deterrent against Soviet wars of invasion.
I'm old enough to remember, very well, the politics of the impeachment of President Nixon. The man was more competent, politically, than President Trump. But he was _lethally_ dangerous to thousands in southeast Asia with illegal attacks against Cambodia, and corrupt in abuse of Vietnam protesters, both of those grounds for impeachment before the discover of illegal taping in the White House and abuse of political opponents exposed at the Watergate Hotel.
The point learned there is that impeachment of a dangerous leader is feasible. But it takes exposure of a criminal offense that Congress is willing to investigate. We've had other treats of impeachment in my lifetime: it would take President Trump doing something not only blatantly criminal, but something that offended Congress sufficiently.
The cell phone services, mapping services, and various vendor profiling tools already have identifiable information of your phone number, your cell phone SIM ID and your MAC address. See https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/... for some sense off the variety of tracking information already shared by portable devices.
Fingerprints are easily forged. The excellent paper http://web.mit.edu/6.857/OldSt... covered the issue 15 years ago and remains valid with even the best modern fingerprint scanners.
> It is an interesting argument. Does the reporting of his crime in any way help the public?
Yes. It informs potential investors, or clients, that this CEO is going to be distracted by criminal proceedings and is going to have large personal expenses.