If linking abortion with privacy isn't judicial activism, then what is?
It's not the idea that I'm objecting to. The idea is obviously a worthy subject for debate.
The problem is that when you use the current GOP-approved talking-points buzzword, it is pretty obvious that you didn't arrive at the conclusion yourself. The dems have their own absurd buzzwords too. In either case, hearing normal people (rather than political operatives) using these buzzwords makes me despair for the future of the country.
Think for yourself, people! Politics is more than marketing.
I don't buy the notion that it's impossible to bury a subtle security-related bug in code which will go unnoticed for a long time. We've seen bugs like that in the Linux code base, for example, and OpenBSD is still finding old BSD bugs from twenty years ago. Yes, it's less of a factor here because voting code ought to be simpler, but still.
As a practical matter, the programmers are almost certainly going to go through a background check anyhow, unless they work for themselves. That doesn't really need to be in the legislation, it's pretty much the reality at most companies, and certainly most government jobs.
That might be a reason to associate certain code with certain individuals for accountability
I imagine that's part of good software project management regardless. Not hard to do, either.
It is possible for an interface to be hard to learn, yet very usable once you understand how it works, and god knows the opposite is also true. This is obviously not a very commercial idea, and possibly why he never got on with Steve Jobs.
It can be a very "commercial" idea. I would think the two-button mouse is proof.
The Constitution commands that it be enterpreted tersely, in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now tell me where it says that unwritten matters of the Constitution may be derived by the whim of activist judges?
As soon as you use the buzzword "activist judges" in a sentence and expect to be taken seriously, you have pretty much flagged yourself as being a Fox News-watching parrot.
But if you're one of those people who thinks that Diebold, a multi-thousand person corporation that prides itself on reliable customer interface systems, is literally conspiring to rig US elections on the basis of offhanded campaign quotes in the context of GOP fundraising by Diebold's CEO, however inappropriate they were, then I suppose none of what I just said will matter to you.
I imagine it's just five or six programmers that people are worried about.
if you're unhappy, how about volunteering next time, as the democrats had to pay campaign workers, while the republicans had 1 million volunteers.
Come on, who mods stupid crap like this up to 5?
1. That volunteer estimate sounds awfully high, and "1 million" sounds like the sort of number someone would just pull out of their ass 2. No, the republicans are not the only ones who have volunteers 3. No, the democrats are not the only ones who pay campaign workers
If the code is open to inspection, there is no need for the background checks. That's just a way of inadvertently preventing the best people from working on the code. Any attempt to license coders sets a disastrous precendent in any event and should be rejected outright.
Plus, who the !@#$% gave ChoicePoint permission to gather data on me?
The federal government.
Funny, ChoicePoint kind of reminds me of what Microsoft wants to do with their.NET establishment. Gather all personal info on one database. Currrently, it's a mistake to put all the eggs in one basket.
I imagine this will become one of the features distinguishing the high-end workstation cards from the consumer cards. Heaven knows some of those folks, like Nvidia, could use more stuff to differentiate the two. "Smarter drivers" is a slightly lame marketing tool.
So go ahead, argue about how no one was harmed, since no one who downloaded was a developer. I'm sure you'll win a big moral victory on slashdot court, but your argument is a nonstarter in a real courtroom.
Right. Because you never have to show damages in court. That would be crazy.
Sure. Explain to me how any normal developer's decision to join a $500 membership-based developer program is going to be affected by the existence of a rogue bittorrent of some random Apple beta product. I'm not seeing it, and I predict that any server logs that are recovered will show that the volume of downloads was pretty small.
I'd also predict that none of the associated IPs belong to serious Apple developers, and so Apple's losses are truly minimal.
This would be a great place to see them settle for an "undisclosed sum" (like a dollar), on condition that neither party discuss the matter further. Everyone wins; Apple doesn't publicly "back down", and the guy gets his life back.
They could have accomplished that much with just a cease-and-desist order. Clearly, these are criminal masterminds who must be stopped. And made to pay!
He needs to look up the definition of malicious. He came into posession of a piece of copyrighted software and then made the conscious decision to seed it to others. He was pirating and he was trafficing stolen goods.
Apple has every right to go after him.
I think people are really speaking past each other in this argument. Yes, Apple is legally in the right. They'll have a heck of a time proving they suffered significant damages, but still, these guys obviously violated their contract. Apple wins, and now, sports.
That's not really the point. Apple's fucking with these people's lives, in spite of the fact that they didn't cause any real harm. Dragging them into a federal court and forcing them into debt to defend themselves is just bad behavior, particularly in light of the fact that these were supporters of Apple.
It's about the distinction between "morally" and "legally" right, and believing that the punishment should fit the crime. Apple's response here is vastly out of proportion with what was necessary... which seems to sort of appeal to some people's sense of justice, nowadays.
Kids (or anyone) that act in an unthinking manner can expect to be educated. Think of it as Evolution in Action.
While you're almost certainly just quoting a crappy science fiction novel in an effort to be cute, everyone ought to think about this for a minute: do you really want a legal system based on Social Darwinism?
Fun, but a bit too much of a drama queen. Yes, airplanes would fall out of the sky. We got that when you said all electronics would fail. Yes, GPS would fail. We got that when you said satellites would be wiped out.
Sort of entertaining but I sort of imagine the guy masturbating while he was writing it.
I wonder if they'd have to smash through the containment. If they got a gasoline tanker or something moving fast enough and just smashed it into the building, things might be awfully problematical.
I imagine that's one of the big aspect of securing a building like that: strategically placing concrete barricades that keep any vehicle close to the building from gaining much momentum. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, more government buildings are landscaped that way from the beginning. Slow down of traffic in downtown areas might be a pain in the ass, but just walking wouldn't kill anyone.
This may come as a shock but NDAs aren't limited to high paying engineering positions at Apple's HQ. The factory workers have them too.
You know this... how? I'm sure you've travelled to all the third-world plants that Apple contracts out to, and you have an intimate knowledge of their logistical and shipment practices.
They don't have to. A product that is revealed before the release date by an employee of Apple
could violate an NDA that they signed as a condition of employment.
I could have a meth lab in my basement, too. It's an interesting hypothetical. It shouldn't give the government the power to invade my privacy.
Has Apple aired any actual evidence in court that there was an NDA breach? Somehow it seems that literally any one of thousands of low-wage workers in some foreign land could have sent word of a product before release.
If Apple hasn't shown that there must have been an NDA leak, and used some other methods to investigate the source of the leak, there's no way this guy should be compelled to reveal his source. They're just bullying him.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that what the registration process is for?
Fewer. Your gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.
See, this is what happens when teaching relies too heavily on phonics!
It's not the idea that I'm objecting to. The idea is obviously a worthy subject for debate.
The problem is that when you use the current GOP-approved talking-points buzzword, it is pretty obvious that you didn't arrive at the conclusion yourself. The dems have their own absurd buzzwords too. In either case, hearing normal people (rather than political operatives) using these buzzwords makes me despair for the future of the country.
Think for yourself, people! Politics is more than marketing.
As a practical matter, the programmers are almost certainly going to go through a background check anyhow, unless they work for themselves. That doesn't really need to be in the legislation, it's pretty much the reality at most companies, and certainly most government jobs.
I imagine that's part of good software project management regardless. Not hard to do, either.
It can be a very "commercial" idea. I would think the two-button mouse is proof.
Do you think it is done out of egalitarianism, or just because it is cheap?
That was only the one time, and you saw: that goat was hot.
As soon as you use the buzzword "activist judges" in a sentence and expect to be taken seriously, you have pretty much flagged yourself as being a Fox News-watching parrot.
I imagine it's just five or six programmers that people are worried about.
Come on, who mods stupid crap like this up to 5?
1. That volunteer estimate sounds awfully high, and "1 million" sounds like the sort of number someone would just pull out of their ass
2. No, the republicans are not the only ones who have volunteers
3. No, the democrats are not the only ones who pay campaign workers
Oh yes, and please punctuate, you ignorant cunt.
Please explain.
Well, duh.
The federal government.
There are many "baskets" like Choicepoint.
I imagine this will become one of the features distinguishing the high-end workstation cards from the consumer cards. Heaven knows some of those folks, like Nvidia, could use more stuff to differentiate the two. "Smarter drivers" is a slightly lame marketing tool.
Right. Because you never have to show damages in court. That would be crazy.
Sure. Explain to me how any normal developer's decision to join a $500 membership-based developer program is going to be affected by the existence of a rogue bittorrent of some random Apple beta product. I'm not seeing it, and I predict that any server logs that are recovered will show that the volume of downloads was pretty small.
I'd also predict that none of the associated IPs belong to serious Apple developers, and so Apple's losses are truly minimal.
And that number would mean what? It doesn't have anything to do with the amount of harm suffered by Apple.
That's very mature.
They could have accomplished that much with just a cease-and-desist order. Clearly, these are criminal masterminds who must be stopped. And made to pay!
I think people are really speaking past each other in this argument. Yes, Apple is legally in the right. They'll have a heck of a time proving they suffered significant damages, but still, these guys obviously violated their contract. Apple wins, and now, sports.
That's not really the point. Apple's fucking with these people's lives, in spite of the fact that they didn't cause any real harm. Dragging them into a federal court and forcing them into debt to defend themselves is just bad behavior, particularly in light of the fact that these were supporters of Apple.
It's about the distinction between "morally" and "legally" right, and believing that the punishment should fit the crime. Apple's response here is vastly out of proportion with what was necessary... which seems to sort of appeal to some people's sense of justice, nowadays.
While you're almost certainly just quoting a crappy science fiction novel in an effort to be cute, everyone ought to think about this for a minute: do you really want a legal system based on Social Darwinism?
Fun, but a bit too much of a drama queen. Yes, airplanes would fall out of the sky. We got that when you said all electronics would fail. Yes, GPS would fail. We got that when you said satellites would be wiped out.
Sort of entertaining but I sort of imagine the guy masturbating while he was writing it.
I wonder if they'd have to smash through the containment. If they got a gasoline tanker or something moving fast enough and just smashed it into the building, things might be awfully problematical.
I imagine that's one of the big aspect of securing a building like that: strategically placing concrete barricades that keep any vehicle close to the building from gaining much momentum. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, more government buildings are landscaped that way from the beginning. Slow down of traffic in downtown areas might be a pain in the ass, but just walking wouldn't kill anyone.
I'm sure there's much more to it than that.
You know this... how? I'm sure you've travelled to all the third-world plants that Apple contracts out to, and you have an intimate knowledge of their logistical and shipment practices.
I could have a meth lab in my basement, too. It's an interesting hypothetical. It shouldn't give the government the power to invade my privacy.
Has Apple aired any actual evidence in court that there was an NDA breach? Somehow it seems that literally any one of thousands of low-wage workers in some foreign land could have sent word of a product before release.
If Apple hasn't shown that there must have been an NDA leak, and used some other methods to investigate the source of the leak, there's no way this guy should be compelled to reveal his source. They're just bullying him.