I apologise for making the false assumption that you were intelligent enough to see that not giving information to the judges renders their authority irrelevant and thus, in practical terms, they really don't have authority. To reject the bad warrants they'd have to blindly reject all warrants.
If you'd done your homework you'd realize that judge's ability to refuse the warrant doesn't mean diddly becuase the judge no longer has to be shown the information that justifies the warrant, and so has nothing to go on to determine if the warrant is justified or not.
As the PATRIOT Act does not give authorities that power
Yes it does, because it removes the requirement that the government disclose the evidence it is using to make the claim that a person is worthy of being arrested. It allows arrests without full disclosure.
No. They're did the same thing to themselves that they did to everyone else - delisting the site (in this case one of their own) until the maintainer changes it and shows them that it no longer does it.
That raises the question: technially speaking, if you buy something form State A and wait 1 week to have it shipped to you via UPS to State B where you live, who owns it during that intervening week? I see three possible conditions:
1 - If the buyer owns it, then the sale occured entirely within the seller's State and that's the only State that should get the sales tax, because after that you were just paying UPS to move something you already own, no different than, say, paying Two Men and a Truck to haul your furniture you already own.
2 - If the seller owns it until you sign the reciept from UPS, then the seller was paying UPS to move goods the SELLER owned, up to your doorstep, and then when you signed the form that when the sale occurred and so only the sales tax from your own state applies.
3 - Or, the carrier, UPS could be the owner during that time, in which case two sales occured - one where the seller sold the product to UPS and another where UPS sold it to you at your doorstep.
In any case, it makes no sense that I'm paying the tax in two states.
The way most downloads you have to pay for work, you technically haven't bought a product. You've bought a service. Downloaded songs? You don't own your copy - you own the right to play the copy that you have stored but don't own. Software? You don't own the software, you just bought the right to use the copy of it you downloaded but don't own.
You should never, ever pay a "sales tax" on a DRMed download becuase you haven't actually really bought a product - you've bought a service, and those don't get taxed as sales tax.
Knowing how to steer a car nicely through a corner enables you to speed, therefore you should't be allowed to tell people how maneuver well in corners because it enables illegal activity.
Because it's really annoying to find that because of someone misguided notion of "user-friendly", you can no longer type a bit of text that looks like a URL WITHOUT having it become a clickable link.
1 - It forces the software producer to do something about it.
2 - It proves you aren't a raving conspiracy theorist lunatic when you make the claim that there is a flaw in the product.
#2 is rather important. The slandering, err - I mean "public relations" efforts of some companies would be running rampant against anyone claiming to have found a vulnerability if they were legally disallowed from backing up their claim with proof.
the Unix method, which could only be read about in a manual.
I first found it by accident. Accidentally clicking the middle button is more likely than accidentally hitting ctrl-V. This was during the first day I was playing around with it on a Sun workstation back in college in 1991, when the computer lab didn't even HAVE the manuals available to the students. So, no I don't believe the claim that it is not discoverable. The first thing I did was fiddle with the buttons on the mouse to see what happened.
When you claim it isn't discoverable, you claim my experience never happened.
Usability research led to the Mac interface. That's proof that it doesn't work, at least in my case. The Macs had to be dragged kicking and screaming toward better usablilty by the users' complaints after the initial design - only one resize corner, menus that dissapear if the user is used to clicking instead of dragging, a menubar that mixes global and app-specific operations without telling you which are which - leaving you confused as to why options you thought were global went away when switching apps, the insistnece that only one button is needed - thus making many mouse operations a two-handed affair (hold down a key while clicking).
You know the ubiquitous right-click context menu that now Windows and Mac use all over the place. I saw it first in X before I saw it in Windows or Mac.
You know the concept of the taskbar that the iconized programs dock into - X had it first.
You know the concept of multiple desktop pagers? X had it first.
All the major GUIs borrowed a lot from each other. Most of the features in GUIs that I hate seem to have come from these usability projects. And part of the reason is that they were looking at ease-of-learning, and mislabelling it as ease-of-use.
You're talking about what happens if you don't report. I'm talking about what happens if you do and it goes over the candidate's limit. YOU don't get in trouble for that.
Knowing that cut and paste is under the edit menu is not assumable for someone not yet used to Windows software. It takes a little while to get that level of familiarity - about as long as it takes to learn middle-click on Unix.
And I hate this shit. "It's ok if it doesn't work in Linux because it also doesn't work in Windows."
Then don't post the false claim that it works better in Windows. It's your own damn fault for making that claim. That response is a counter to the claim you made, NOT a claim that this means it's perfectly okay and should stay that way.
I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread that it's not discoverable, which makes for bad GUI design.
I agree, but what you're missing is that ctrl-C and ctrl-V are equally non-discoverable and are thus not an improvement in usabilty for that reason (there are other reasons they are nice, but discoverablity isn't one of them.) The only difference is that ctrl-C and ctrl-V were already discovered for you - the work to memorize them was already paid for. I came from the opposite site. I knew middle-click first, and had a hard time discovering ctrl-C and ctrl-V. (Because I'd had it drilled into me from so many other home computers and from commandlines that ctrl-C means "premature cancel" or "break" or "quit" - and I was thus trained to not try hitting it randomly when looking for which keys do stuff.)
All too often there are idiots out there who can't tell the difference between "already has been learned" versus "easy to learn". And that's an attitude that will always falsely label the status quo as being easier than everything else no matter the situation.
The ability to edit posts allows for revisionism. It has no place during a conversation. I am very glad slashdot doesn't follow that stupid idea and do it just because everyone else is. It's a bad misfeature.
It's not a case of showing different results to other search engines. It's a case of showing different results to just themselves only. It doesn't affect Yahoo or MSN search - they still see the same page everyone else does.
Google's complaint with other websites is, basicly, "When we hit your site, please show us the same thing you show everyone else." Thus they aren't breaking their own rule, because they ARE doing that to the other search engines out there. They are only 'lying' to themselves.
Let's say MSN did the same thing, and rendered keyword-stuffed results for their own searches on their own sites, but still showed the same page to all external visitors, treating google no differently than an interactive user. Then it wouldn't harm Google's search in the slightest (and in fact google's search would end up being better than MSN's search on their own site because it wouldn't be tainted by the keyword stuffing). Similarly, what google did doesn't harm the other search engines in the slightest, and in fact makes them a tiny sliver more accurate than google is.
No, this is not the same thing that they are complaining about. They don't mind in the slightest if other search engines lie to themselves, so long as they don't lie to google, and google can lie to itself so long as it doesn't lie to other search engines.
What you say is true of a device that only RECEIVES signals, such as a pocket AM/FM radio. But a cellphone also TRAMSITS signals, and that is where the alleged problem is. The transmitted signals have to be receivable by the base station up to 5 km away, which means they have to be rather strong as they are originally trasmitted from the source - the source that is right next to your head.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologise for making the false assumption that you were intelligent enough to see that not giving information to the judges renders their authority irrelevant and thus, in practical terms, they really don't have authority. To reject the bad warrants they'd have to blindly reject all warrants.
Exactly. Contrast that with the Patriot act, where proof of probable cause is not necessary for arrest anymore.
If you'd done your homework you'd realize that judge's ability to refuse the warrant doesn't mean diddly becuase the judge no longer has to be shown the information that justifies the warrant, and so has nothing to go on to determine if the warrant is justified or not.
As the PATRIOT Act does not give authorities that power
Yes it does, because it removes the requirement that the government disclose the evidence it is using to make the claim that a person is worthy of being arrested. It allows arrests without full disclosure.
Just like they do with others. They delist the smallest domain that still covers the entire range of problem sites.
No. They're did the same thing to themselves that they did to everyone else - delisting the site (in this case one of their own) until the maintainer changes it and shows them that it no longer does it.
That raises the question: technially speaking, if you buy something form State A and wait 1 week to have it shipped to you via UPS to State B where you live, who owns it during that intervening week? I see three possible conditions:
1 - If the buyer owns it, then the sale occured entirely within the seller's State and that's the only State that should get the sales tax, because after that you were just paying UPS to move something you already own, no different than, say, paying Two Men and a Truck to haul your furniture you already own.
2 - If the seller owns it until you sign the reciept from UPS, then the seller was paying UPS to move goods the SELLER owned, up to your doorstep, and then when you signed the form that when the sale occurred and so only the sales tax from your own state applies.
3 - Or, the carrier, UPS could be the owner during that time, in which case two sales occured - one where the seller sold the product to UPS and another where UPS sold it to you at your doorstep.
In any case, it makes no sense that I'm paying the tax in two states.
The way most downloads you have to pay for work, you technically haven't bought a product. You've bought a service. Downloaded songs? You don't own your copy - you own the right to play the copy that you have stored but don't own. Software? You don't own the software, you just bought the right to use the copy of it you downloaded but don't own.
You should never, ever pay a "sales tax" on a DRMed download becuase you haven't actually really bought a product - you've bought a service, and those don't get taxed as sales tax.
This has to do with over-taxing governments, not politics.
That statement is self-contradictory.
when the merchant doesn't already pay the tax for you.
How do you know if they do or not?
Yes, and of course a setting in MS Word has something to do with posts on slashdot...oh wait...
Knowing how to steer a car nicely through a corner enables you to speed, therefore you should't be allowed to tell people how maneuver well in corners because it enables illegal activity.
Because it's really annoying to find that because of someone misguided notion of "user-friendly", you can no longer type a bit of text that looks like a URL WITHOUT having it become a clickable link.
The reason to publish a vulnerability is twofold:
1 - It forces the software producer to do something about it.
2 - It proves you aren't a raving conspiracy theorist lunatic when you make the claim that there is a flaw in the product.
#2 is rather important. The slandering, err - I mean "public relations" efforts of some companies would be running rampant against anyone claiming to have found a vulnerability if they were legally disallowed from backing up their claim with proof.
"Another tool" in this case is not something that runs on Windows.
the Unix method, which could only be read about in a manual.
I first found it by accident. Accidentally clicking the middle button is more likely than accidentally hitting ctrl-V. This was during the first day I was playing around with it on a Sun workstation back in college in 1991, when the computer lab didn't even HAVE the manuals available to the students. So, no I don't believe the claim that it is not discoverable. The first thing I did was fiddle with the buttons on the mouse to see what happened.
When you claim it isn't discoverable, you claim my experience never happened.
Usability research led to the Mac interface. That's proof that it doesn't work, at least in my case. The Macs had to be dragged kicking and screaming toward better usablilty by the users' complaints after the initial design - only one resize corner, menus that dissapear if the user is used to clicking instead of dragging, a menubar that mixes global and app-specific operations without telling you which are which - leaving you confused as to why options you thought were global went away when switching apps, the insistnece that only one button is needed - thus making many mouse operations a two-handed affair (hold down a key while clicking).
You know the ubiquitous right-click context menu that now Windows and Mac use all over the place. I saw it first in X before I saw it in Windows or Mac.
You know the concept of the taskbar that the iconized programs dock into - X had it first.
You know the concept of multiple desktop pagers? X had it first.
All the major GUIs borrowed a lot from each other. Most of the features in GUIs that I hate seem to have come from these usability projects. And part of the reason is that they were looking at ease-of-learning, and mislabelling it as ease-of-use.
This one is way better:
d uc tid=16489&cat=0&page=1
http://www.fantasyfrontiers.com/product.php?pro
I can't reccomend it enough.
You're talking about what happens if you don't report. I'm talking about what happens if you do and it goes over the candidate's limit. YOU don't get in trouble for that.
Knowing that cut and paste is under the edit menu is not assumable for someone not yet used to Windows software. It takes a little while to get that level of familiarity - about as long as it takes to learn middle-click on Unix.
You're acting like competitor and enemy are mutually exclusive terms. They aren't. An enemy is a certain type of competitor.
Competitor of Foo: Wants Foo to not do as well as itself.
Enemy of Foo: Wants to do so by making Foo stop altogether.
Some of the competitors of Linux do in fact also fit the definition of enemy.
And I hate this shit. "It's ok if it doesn't work in Linux because it also doesn't work in Windows."
Then don't post the false claim that it works better in Windows. It's your own damn fault for making that claim. That response is a counter to the claim you made, NOT a claim that this means it's perfectly okay and should stay that way.
I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread that it's not discoverable, which makes for bad GUI design.
I agree, but what you're missing is that ctrl-C and ctrl-V are equally non-discoverable and are thus not an improvement in usabilty for that reason (there are other reasons they are nice, but discoverablity isn't one of them.) The only difference is that ctrl-C and ctrl-V were already discovered for you - the work to memorize them was already paid for. I came from the opposite site. I knew middle-click first, and had a hard time discovering ctrl-C and ctrl-V. (Because I'd had it drilled into me from so many other home computers and from commandlines that ctrl-C means "premature cancel" or "break" or "quit" - and I was thus trained to not try hitting it randomly when looking for which keys do stuff.)
All too often there are idiots out there who can't tell the difference between "already has been learned" versus "easy to learn". And that's an attitude that will always falsely label the status quo as being easier than everything else no matter the situation.
The ability to edit posts allows for revisionism. It has no place during a conversation. I am very glad slashdot doesn't follow that stupid idea and do it just because everyone else is. It's a bad misfeature.
It's not a case of showing different results to other search engines. It's a case of showing different results to just themselves only. It doesn't affect Yahoo or MSN search - they still see the same page everyone else does.
Google's complaint with other websites is, basicly, "When we hit your site, please show us the same thing you show everyone else." Thus they aren't breaking their own rule, because they ARE doing that to the other search engines out there. They are only 'lying' to themselves.
Let's say MSN did the same thing, and rendered keyword-stuffed results for their own searches on their own sites, but still showed the same page to all external visitors, treating google no differently than an interactive user. Then it wouldn't harm Google's search in the slightest (and in fact google's search would end up being better than MSN's search on their own site because it wouldn't be tainted by the keyword stuffing). Similarly, what google did doesn't harm the other search engines in the slightest, and in fact makes them a tiny sliver more accurate than google is.
No, this is not the same thing that they are complaining about. They don't mind in the slightest if other search engines lie to themselves, so long as they don't lie to google, and google can lie to itself so long as it doesn't lie to other search engines.
What you say is true of a device that only RECEIVES signals, such as a pocket AM/FM radio. But a cellphone also TRAMSITS signals, and that is where the alleged problem is. The transmitted signals have to be receivable by the base station up to 5 km away, which means they have to be rather strong as they are originally trasmitted from the source - the source that is right next to your head.