You're wrong, plain and simple. Privacy matters; there is a fundamental right to the privacy of one's private correspondence and personal effects. Media that is widely available on the internet is not in any way personal, and as such does not come under this.
The police and TPB will have to defend their actions in court. We're talking images of child abuse here, I don't see how this has anything to do with the freedom to express ones opinion.
Because it will have a huge negative impact on TPB whether or not it turns out the images were actually there.
But most of the APIs people actually use on linux are crossplatform e.g. GTK and Qt exist on many more platforms than just linux; in general with a random linux program you have a decent chance of it working on at least OSX/*BSD and windows, which is very much not the case for windows programs (though I do wonder how many programs one could successfully compile with winelib if they only gave you the source)
A bunch of netziens should get together and buy a ship to do this. Moor it in international waters, charge enough to cover costs to people downloading. But I'm not sure how one would get a solid enough connection.
But that very fact destroys free speech, because the government can make a baseless accusation that "site X is serving child porn", and no-one complains about it being shut down, regardless of what was actually on the site. Sweepstakes on when this technique gets used to shut down a site that's critical of the ruling party, anyone?
I think it is common human nature to peak. Maybe it wasn't professional or ethical, but morally it is better than child porn.
The question wasn't whether he was better than the guy who had the child porn, but whether he was better than most [people]. And I'd say no, because I think most people wouldn't peek in that situation. I know I wouldn't.
No, dear. That's called flamebaiting. Trolling is when someone says something like "lolol stfu fag" and invokes Godwin's law, then talks about the GNAA and finishes off with some ascii art spelling out a yo momma hot grits joke.
Wrong. Look it up.
Of course, what I actually did was to cite my opinions in a clear, reasonable manner.
Which is entirely irrelevant.
If you think that's going to "attract predictable flames," well, then you think mostly about the parts of slashdot I tend to ignore.
I'm just being realistic here. Am I wrong? I made no comment about whether it would attract interesting responses as well.
Just because you can't imagine being civil doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
And now you stoop to personal attacks. I'm perfectly capable of a civil discussion, as are many people here, but come on, this is slashdot.
I don't know about that. Most people stare at me blankly when I suggest maybe using Ubuntu for basic computing instead of a pirated Windows.
But five years ago that "most" would have been "all". Linux is still small, but it's gaining momentum; in MS' position I'd certainly be keeping a wary eye on it.
Ironic, isn't it, that being honest and demonstrating a better moral compass than most can come at such a high price?
On what basis are you claiming your moral compass is better? Your morals were lacking to be looking there in the first place, and I suspect that's what lead to people not trusting you.
One is published, the other is not. Consider the analogy with a trade secret; of course there's no "trade" involved, but people's private information should have a similar level of protection.
Fairness matters in a single player game too, but then it becomes being fair within the parameters it sets itself, which ultimately means "honesty" about what it's doing. Zelda has respawning enemies, but it lets you see them doing it - it's just a part of the game. Goldeneye pretends its enemies are there already or coming from somewhere, and there are several levels you can completely clear out - and then you get infinite streams of enemies in the worst possible place.
No; to get the hydrogen/oxygen to go into such a pipe at the bottom, you'd have to pump them in forcefully, with as much energy as it would take to move them up by other means. Seriously, creation of energy doesn't happen, and because mass is conserved gravity is never going to give you any; the amount you could. If you want free energy for human purposes, work on efficient solar panels, or nuclear fusion; there are plenty of places where we know there's enough energy if we can just solve the engineering problems of getting it. But gravity is not in itself a source of energy.
Erm, I hope this is a troll, but water masses *less* than its constituent hydrogen and oxygen, so you'd take more work to pipe them up than you gain from the falling water.
You sir are wrong. If only because the infinitely respawning enemies that goldeneye has but tries to pretend it doesn't have ruin any possible sense of fairness.
More information, please? This assertion is the fundamental problem I've always had with quantum theory, and every time I ask someone who thinks they know what they're taking about to explain it, they wave their hands around a bit, say "Heisenberg" a few times, then claim it's lunchtime and they really must go. The uncertainty principle as I've always had it explained to me (for instance, in my university physics course) is that observation of (ie. interaction with) a particle affects that particle in a way that you can't determine, and hence it isn't possible to simultaneously measure some quantities. There seems to be a big jump from "can't measure" to "doesn't exist" and no-one seems willing to talk about it.
It doesn't apply directly to this point, but what got me accepting that there is indeterminacy in quantum mechanics was Conway's "free will theorem". IIRC, it goes like this: if we have a spin-half particle, we can take measurements on any three orthogonal axes, and we always get two 1s and a 0. This measurement gives us results that are in some sense fixed, because we can entangle the particle with another and separate them by a big distance in space, and if another observer measures one of the same axes we did on the entangled particle they'll get the same answer. Once we have made the measurement we destroy the entanglement and subsequent measurements can be different; thus we can only measure one set of three axes at a time. But, we can draw a set of 31 axes for which it is impossible to assign any set of 0s and 1s to them so that among any 3 orthogonal axes there are 2 1s and a 0. So, the values on the axes must be indeterminate before we measure them, and the values on the axes we didn't measure are not merely unmeasurable, but don't exist.
For the specific case, the grounds for believing position and momentum aren't well defined are more philosophical: in every way we can measure, the particle behaves as if its position and momentum were not well defined, and this gives a simpler model than saying that the position and momentum are definite but follow certain probabilities according to everything we can measure, therefore the most reasonable deduction seems to be that they aren't well defined.
Gee, what will we ever do? Possibly get an open CPU core? And make the damn thing simple enough that it doesn't need a huge BIOS outside of the voting software?
Already exists; run it on a sparc with open firmware.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong, plain and simple. Privacy matters; there is a fundamental right to the privacy of one's private correspondence and personal effects. Media that is widely available on the internet is not in any way personal, and as such does not come under this.
Because it will have a huge negative impact on TPB whether or not it turns out the images were actually there.
But most of the APIs people actually use on linux are crossplatform e.g. GTK and Qt exist on many more platforms than just linux; in general with a random linux program you have a decent chance of it working on at least OSX/*BSD and windows, which is very much not the case for windows programs (though I do wonder how many programs one could successfully compile with winelib if they only gave you the source)
A bunch of netziens should get together and buy a ship to do this. Moor it in international waters, charge enough to cover costs to people downloading. But I'm not sure how one would get a solid enough connection.
But that very fact destroys free speech, because the government can make a baseless accusation that "site X is serving child porn", and no-one complains about it being shut down, regardless of what was actually on the site. Sweepstakes on when this technique gets used to shut down a site that's critical of the ruling party, anyone?
The question wasn't whether he was better than the guy who had the child porn, but whether he was better than most [people]. And I'd say no, because I think most people wouldn't peek in that situation. I know I wouldn't.
Wrong. Look it up.
Of course, what I actually did was to cite my opinions in a clear, reasonable manner.
Which is entirely irrelevant.
If you think that's going to "attract predictable flames," well, then you think mostly about the parts of slashdot I tend to ignore.
I'm just being realistic here. Am I wrong? I made no comment about whether it would attract interesting responses as well.
Just because you can't imagine being civil doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
And now you stoop to personal attacks. I'm perfectly capable of a civil discussion, as are many people here, but come on, this is slashdot.
Bollocks. You're making a post which will attract predictable flames, therefore troll.
But five years ago that "most" would have been "all". Linux is still small, but it's gaining momentum; in MS' position I'd certainly be keeping a wary eye on it.
On what basis are you claiming your moral compass is better? Your morals were lacking to be looking there in the first place, and I suspect that's what lead to people not trusting you.
One is published, the other is not. Consider the analogy with a trade secret; of course there's no "trade" involved, but people's private information should have a similar level of protection.
Fairness matters in a single player game too, but then it becomes being fair within the parameters it sets itself, which ultimately means "honesty" about what it's doing. Zelda has respawning enemies, but it lets you see them doing it - it's just a part of the game. Goldeneye pretends its enemies are there already or coming from somewhere, and there are several levels you can completely clear out - and then you get infinite streams of enemies in the worst possible place.
No, but games are about fairness.
No; to get the hydrogen/oxygen to go into such a pipe at the bottom, you'd have to pump them in forcefully, with as much energy as it would take to move them up by other means. Seriously, creation of energy doesn't happen, and because mass is conserved gravity is never going to give you any; the amount you could. If you want free energy for human purposes, work on efficient solar panels, or nuclear fusion; there are plenty of places where we know there's enough energy if we can just solve the engineering problems of getting it. But gravity is not in itself a source of energy.
No, they're not, because it's, you know, impossible.
Erm, I hope this is a troll, but water masses *less* than its constituent hydrogen and oxygen, so you'd take more work to pipe them up than you gain from the falling water.
Erm, Fermat's Little Theorem is pretty easy to proove.
You sir are wrong. If only because the infinitely respawning enemies that goldeneye has but tries to pretend it doesn't have ruin any possible sense of fairness.
It's less fun because one never gets any emotional involvement; there is too little story.
On that basis, what is super mario 64 doing on the list when donkey kong 64 is superior in every respect?
It doesn't apply directly to this point, but what got me accepting that there is indeterminacy in quantum mechanics was Conway's "free will theorem". IIRC, it goes like this: if we have a spin-half particle, we can take measurements on any three orthogonal axes, and we always get two 1s and a 0. This measurement gives us results that are in some sense fixed, because we can entangle the particle with another and separate them by a big distance in space, and if another observer measures one of the same axes we did on the entangled particle they'll get the same answer. Once we have made the measurement we destroy the entanglement and subsequent measurements can be different; thus we can only measure one set of three axes at a time. But, we can draw a set of 31 axes for which it is impossible to assign any set of 0s and 1s to them so that among any 3 orthogonal axes there are 2 1s and a 0. So, the values on the axes must be indeterminate before we measure them, and the values on the axes we didn't measure are not merely unmeasurable, but don't exist.
For the specific case, the grounds for believing position and momentum aren't well defined are more philosophical: in every way we can measure, the particle behaves as if its position and momentum were not well defined, and this gives a simpler model than saying that the position and momentum are definite but follow certain probabilities according to everything we can measure, therefore the most reasonable deduction seems to be that they aren't well defined.
Out with it, then. What are these reasons?
Erm, open it in xine, wheras you cannot play flash at all on linux/amd64.
Already exists; run it on a sparc with open firmware.
Two words for you: Dyson computation. Look it up.