Failure to surrender your encryption keys to the UK authorities will net you two years.
Well, that's what they'll sentence you to. You won't do nearly that much time.
Once they tell the other inmates you're a pedo, they'll kill you after a week, tops, with
the guards looking on approvingly. You'll be out in no time!
Re:Books Are Just Office Trophies
on
SQL in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Not only that, but books are good for things that you wouldn't think to Google. I noticed recently that a coworker did this (slightly simplified to illustrate the point):
public void doSomethingOrOther( int[] a )
{
int b[] = new int[ a.length ];
for ( int i = 0; i < a.length; i++ )
{
b[i] = a[i];
} ...
}
I pointed him to "System.arraycopy" which is quite a bit faster and does the same thing on a single line of code. This just isn't something you'd find out about unless (a) you read a book or (b) had a coworker who read a book. (Well, I guess if you read all the online javadoc line-by-line, you'd discover this, too...)
Well, remember, the people cheering for this are the people who don't pay any taxes; they just leech off of other people. In a "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" marxist utopia, you just have to act needy and unable and you'll have everything handed to you. Of course, you're killing your golden goose (since the people paying, who have a means to leave, will get the hell out), but that's your children's problem, not yours. You get your stuff right now and that's all that matters.
Well, if you think it's fair, why does the government have to pay for it out of tax revenues? Why don't you voluntarily give up some of your money to the "internet for the poor" charity? Oh, I see... it's only fair when other people have to pay for it. And it's even more fair when they have no say in the matter.
No, silly, it's not their income - they don't pay for it at all. It's the wealthiest 1%, who already have more than they need, who pay for it. It doesn't cost them anything. Well, unless you count all the unemployment, inflation and corruption that goes along with socialism. But hey, it's all worth it to me as long as I get my !
There's your problem. You can't by definition be censorship resistant and censor at the same time. So unfortunately or not, censorship is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Nevertheless, it isn't censorship on Amazon's part.
Ok, what is it then? What word describes the process of "removing material that one personally finds offensive"? I would have picked "censorship", but you seem to be so certain that that doesn't describe what Amazon is doing, what does?
When I first started using the internet, I was shocked to find out that all of
the thoughts that I had in my head, that I thought were mine alone, that I was
afraid to speak out loud because I thought nobody else felt the same way, were
not only shared by other people out there, but shared by a lot of people out
there. I realized for the first time that I had been almost unconsciously censoring
myself out of fear of disapproval - out of the fear that I was literally the
only person on the entire planet who thought some of the things I thought.
The other thing I found out was that a lot of the thoughts and perspectives that
I took for granted - the things that I just assumed everybody else thought and
agreed with - were actually not universal. Just as there are large numbers of
people who agree with just about every point of view you can come up with, there
are (surprisingly, in some cases) people who disagree with just about every
point of view you can come up with. Both of these revelations were shocks to me.
I had to adjust my entire way of looking at the world, and stop taking pretty much
anything for granted.
I consider this progress. I would go so far as to say this is one of the two
or three times humanity has ever actually progressed since we came down from the trees
(another belief which, incidentally, a shocking number of people disagree about).
What's disturbing to me is the number of people, like you and this Cheryl Preston,
who can't adjust. Their world view has been challenged. Their horizons have been
opened. This terrifies them. They need to realign the world back to their simplistic
youthful days when everything was black and white, and when everything they took
for granted was (at least in their own minds) true.
Yes, Commodore64_love is correct - the religion dictates it, idiot. That's like saying saying registered democrats don't vote democrat because you know a registered democrat who didn't vote at all once. It's not a "sweeping generalization", it's a definition.
BTW, I'm pretty sure commodore64_love is a woman - she used to have a sig that referred to her clitoris. At least I hope that means she's a woman...
Well, since the religious types started the whole "nudity is bad" concept, I seriously doubt that "religion has nothing to do with it". I'd be shocked if this guy wasn't a zealous religious type.
And although this sort of thing always comes from superstitious religious nutbags, neither the old testament nor the new testament has much to say about nudity (not sure about the koran, never read it). It's easier to make up random stuff and say the bible says that than to actually read it and try to apply its lessons to your life.
That's like saying Keith Olbermann is representative of all Liberals.....
Uh, no, it's a little differnt. In this case, they all actually do have a common book they all follow. Or, at least, they say they do - although in most cases they pretend it says things it doesn't say and then ignore the things it actually does say.
I love the irony in the implication that you consider it perfectly acceptable to physically abuse somebody to force upon them your own completely irrational interpretation of "morality".
See, my definition of "moral" behavior includes not beating on somebody smaller than you for no good reason. But that's just me.
But, if not for puritanical jerks like yourself, this sort of behavior wouldn't be a big deal, would it? You turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy - "if you do this, your life will be ruined, because a loudmouthed minority of religious bible-thumping zealots like myself will judge you as a nonperson because of it."
I did a lot of things as a teenager that I'm embarrassed about - in fact, there's photographic evidence that I had hair halfway down my back and walked around in sleeveless T-shirts. If some group of idiots started insisting that "nobody who ever wore their hair long can get a decent job" (or whatever the hell random consequence you arbitrarily decide to associate with naked pictures), I'd be screwed.
Don't know what you mean about not teaching you trouble teaching skills.
He means he could never be bothered to go to college (or couldn't hack it). He has to either accept that "them fancy-schmancy college boys" might know something he doesn't know, or he can close his mind completely and say, "If I don't know it, it must not be worth knowin'".
I can tell you that without a formal training in the field I wouldn't even bring you in for an interviewI have yet to interview ANYONE just out of school who knew a damn thing
You anti-college people crack me up. You do know that there are people who graduated college more recently than yesterday, right? Rail and complain against it all you want, but there are lots of people with college degrees out there, and although it's not a guarantee of competence, it's a pretty good low-pass filter.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's what they'll sentence you to. You won't do nearly that much time. Once they tell the other inmates you're a pedo, they'll kill you after a week, tops, with the guards looking on approvingly. You'll be out in no time!
Not only that, but books are good for things that you wouldn't think to Google. I noticed recently that a coworker did this (slightly simplified to illustrate the point):
public void doSomethingOrOther( int[] a )
...
{
int b[] = new int[ a.length ];
for ( int i = 0; i < a.length; i++ )
{
b[i] = a[i];
}
}
I pointed him to "System.arraycopy" which is quite a bit faster and does the same thing on a single line of code. This just isn't something you'd find out about unless (a) you read a book or (b) had a coworker who read a book. (Well, I guess if you read all the online javadoc line-by-line, you'd discover this, too...)
Ah, you've been modded "-1, accurate", I see.
Well, remember, the people cheering for this are the people who don't pay any taxes; they just leech off of other people. In a "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" marxist utopia, you just have to act needy and unable and you'll have everything handed to you. Of course, you're killing your golden goose (since the people paying, who have a means to leave, will get the hell out), but that's your children's problem, not yours. You get your stuff right now and that's all that matters.
Well, if you think it's fair, why does the government have to pay for it out of tax revenues? Why don't you voluntarily give up some of your money to the "internet for the poor" charity? Oh, I see... it's only fair when other people have to pay for it. And it's even more fair when they have no say in the matter.
No, silly, it's not their income - they don't pay for it at all. It's the wealthiest 1%, who already have more than they need, who pay for it. It doesn't cost them anything. Well, unless you count all the unemployment, inflation and corruption that goes along with socialism. But hey, it's all worth it to me as long as I get my !
I think he was referring to the total lack of conscience on the part of the people who are applauding the stealing.
It gets worse:
"You will give us your money so we can pay for this. You have no say in the matter."
"Since we're paying for this, we will decide what sort of content is acceptable on 'our' internet. You have no say in the matter."
There's your problem. You can't by definition be censorship resistant and censor at the same time. So unfortunately or not, censorship is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Ok, what is it then? What word describes the process of "removing material that one personally finds offensive"? I would have picked "censorship", but you seem to be so certain that that doesn't describe what Amazon is doing, what does?
Modded "-1, Potential Republican", I see...
When I first started using the internet, I was shocked to find out that all of the thoughts that I had in my head, that I thought were mine alone, that I was afraid to speak out loud because I thought nobody else felt the same way, were not only shared by other people out there, but shared by a lot of people out there. I realized for the first time that I had been almost unconsciously censoring myself out of fear of disapproval - out of the fear that I was literally the only person on the entire planet who thought some of the things I thought.
The other thing I found out was that a lot of the thoughts and perspectives that I took for granted - the things that I just assumed everybody else thought and agreed with - were actually not universal. Just as there are large numbers of people who agree with just about every point of view you can come up with, there are (surprisingly, in some cases) people who disagree with just about every point of view you can come up with. Both of these revelations were shocks to me. I had to adjust my entire way of looking at the world, and stop taking pretty much anything for granted.
I consider this progress. I would go so far as to say this is one of the two or three times humanity has ever actually progressed since we came down from the trees (another belief which, incidentally, a shocking number of people disagree about). What's disturbing to me is the number of people, like you and this Cheryl Preston, who can't adjust. Their world view has been challenged. Their horizons have been opened. This terrifies them. They need to realign the world back to their simplistic youthful days when everything was black and white, and when everything they took for granted was (at least in their own minds) true.
Er, perpetrated by government people with government power. And somehow you think giving government more power will reduce this sort of thing?
Yes, Commodore64_love is correct - the religion dictates it, idiot. That's like saying saying registered democrats don't vote democrat because you know a registered democrat who didn't vote at all once. It's not a "sweeping generalization", it's a definition.
BTW, I'm pretty sure commodore64_love is a woman - she used to have a sig that referred to her clitoris. At least I hope that means she's a woman...
Yeah, good luck in court. At least 50% of the jury pool would lock you up "just to be on the safe side."
Well, since the religious types started the whole "nudity is bad" concept, I seriously doubt that "religion has nothing to do with it". I'd be shocked if this guy wasn't a zealous religious type.
And although this sort of thing always comes from superstitious religious nutbags, neither the old testament nor the new testament has much to say about nudity (not sure about the koran, never read it). It's easier to make up random stuff and say the bible says that than to actually read it and try to apply its lessons to your life.
Uh, no, it's a little differnt. In this case, they all actually do have a common book they all follow. Or, at least, they say they do - although in most cases they pretend it says things it doesn't say and then ignore the things it actually does say.
Yeah, really! That's not OK at all! Because... because... ok, I've got nothing...
I love the irony in the implication that you consider it perfectly acceptable to physically abuse somebody to force upon them your own completely irrational interpretation of "morality".
See, my definition of "moral" behavior includes not beating on somebody smaller than you for no good reason. But that's just me.
But, if not for puritanical jerks like yourself, this sort of behavior wouldn't be a big deal, would it? You turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy - "if you do this, your life will be ruined, because a loudmouthed minority of religious bible-thumping zealots like myself will judge you as a nonperson because of it."
I did a lot of things as a teenager that I'm embarrassed about - in fact, there's photographic evidence that I had hair halfway down my back and walked around in sleeveless T-shirts. If some group of idiots started insisting that "nobody who ever wore their hair long can get a decent job" (or whatever the hell random consequence you arbitrarily decide to associate with naked pictures), I'd be screwed.
Hm, I don't know... google Masha Allen some time. She's pretty upset about her pictures floating around out there.
Good luck in court.
You don't even have to go to violent video games here... I can't think of anything I couldn't come up with a reason to ban using that logic.
He means he could never be bothered to go to college (or couldn't hack it). He has to either accept that "them fancy-schmancy college boys" might know something he doesn't know, or he can close his mind completely and say, "If I don't know it, it must not be worth knowin'".
You anti-college people crack me up. You do know that there are people who graduated college more recently than yesterday, right? Rail and complain against it all you want, but there are lots of people with college degrees out there, and although it's not a guarantee of competence, it's a pretty good low-pass filter.