What are the chances that she would date a murderer... and then marry another one? Math dudes, help us out, lets see some clever combinations and permutations on this one... and don't forget the "a woman has a 1 in x chance of dating a murderer, but a 1 in y chance of marrying another after dating the first..."
In the US, in almost all instances, prosecutors are given full immunity from prosecution for anything they may do wrong. This is not to protect them from incrimination, lawsuit retaliation or the like, though it does somewhat, but it is for a specific and grave purpose (prosecutors seem to forget or ignore): its so they can afford to be just.
All they will ever get, if they cross the line, is slaps on the wrist, if even that, so many of them use this as an advantage, a strategy... and will always cross the line exaggerating facts, inflating charges.
On the face of it, in the US, it appears that the cards are stacked in favor of the defendant --all that "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense. In the US, no criminal court of law at any level will ever find you "innocent." The best you can hope for is dismissal of charges before its determined, or "not guilty."
Life isn't fair. But Justice should be. Let the punishment fit the crime. Idle hands are the devil's playthings. OK, one more cliche... don't do the crime, if you don't have a dime.
I know the penalties are real. But I've always felt it was wrong to attribute to companies, espescially large ones, the equal rights of the individual. Some day I will fight that, and promote the ideal that the individual's rights supercede the majority's authority. Call it crime, and immoral, and let the punishment fit the crime. When the the victim has no damages, the punishment should be slight. But it rarely is. When they catch you, they punish you for everyone else that did it and got away with it. Life is so unfair. But Justice shouldn't be.
Thanks for trying. I was hoping for some cold facts, but at least you tried. I guess its more important that you are slammed for your heresy rather than me have some understanding of just what is (constructively) wrong with linux. I would say it could be as simple as the mere mucking up of directories, adding more directories starting with the same letter, or couple of letters, that are unrelated, when there was no reason to do so. But... my my mentor also scoffs at the tab-completion I like so much (and tells me I'm lazy), so I don't think that's it.
petrus4, I need your help. My BSD mentor has pretty much disowned me because a few weeks ago I installed Edgy on some old box I had lying around. (At the university I work for, outside of the user space, there is Windows, Solaris, and Linux servers. Linux is by far the most prevalent, and I figured it was time I stopped excluding myself from possible income sources.) What's the big deal? The penguinistas have become a lot less annoying in the last couple years about their cause, and Linux is progressing towards a stately adolescence. I guess what I'm asking is... where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?
look... no hard feelings.. I'll curb my use of the word (I was really just trying to put myself in the mindset of an ambitious prosecutor). Appears there's actual stories appearing on Digg now. School night, and all.
I appreciate the dialogue!
Combine my observation with the one that came out last year and it means that it only takes a handful who care to cause a problem. Seems fairly straightforward.
So you're flopping positions... "enough to cause a problem" isn't "enough to make the site popular and successful."
You're the one who started by throwing around the terrorism buzzword.
And I'll pay for that for the rest of my days, apparently. Actually, you've used it more than I have. Well...actually, what I wrote, and only once, was maybe. See... the "maybe" is a quantifier... meaning I had suspended judgement. If Digg employees are fearful because of this tirade, and that's not inconcievable, then they might feel that way. Poor choice of word, MAYBE... but a few more posts on what I suggested 8 posts ago and I think it will be out of your system.
You are not, in any way, qualified to judge what is and is not considered speech.
Well... there's something you don't know. You have no idea if that statement is true or not. And no way to prove it either way.
I fear...
fear leads to anger
...what this may do to your sense of self-importance, but I'm not remotely angry.
Abusive then. You are God-aweful abusive. Your pugalistic taunting has kept me entertained, though.
You will have to try harder than that to make me angry.
There is no try... it was a movie reference... an attempt to get you to lighten up and spread sunshine instead of feces.
Go ahead and add hypocrisy to your list of character faults. That's a good boy.
Hey, thanks for the critique. Now... what about you? Not so shiny, are you? Well, I don't judge, but I do tend to protect myself. I know... selfish... adding it to the list...
Apparently it's enough of them that it's causing them a problem.
Didn't it come out last year that it only takes a handful to manipulate Digg? I'm not sure your observation means anything.
That's also a completely irrelevant to the fact that you're trying to make it out to be something far more sinister than it is.
Um... what? Who's making something out of nothing? CENSORSHIP oooooooo. Theres the bullshit. Besides, I wouldn't say far more... I was looking at it as the worst it could be. It certainly isn't nothing. And I'd say it is... sinister. What is happening at Digg is a bunch of users drunk with power. Evil takes many forms, some, unlike this, that really hurt people physically, but what's happening isn't harmless. I think its probably the equivalent of trashing someone's car, or... business facade. You think Kevin isn't afraid of his users now?
When were you appointed, Justice Catmistake?
I think were reaching the shallow grave of your abuse and intellect. You can't argue the point, so attack the individual making it.
Maybe if you'd tone down the bullshit hyperbole and stuck to facts...
Likewise my eloquent adversary...
But I don't think that will do it for you. Tell ya what, I'll keep my hyperbole, and you keep your festering anger and abuse. How much angrier can you get? Lets see. I can feel your anger, use it! Strike me down!
If everyone simply folds, MPAA/RIAA are indeed guaranteed to win.
Does everyone include these "valuable" users who "made the site a success?" Again, there is no obligation on their part to do anything. If they stood up, yes, heros, win or lose. But not being a hero doesn't make one a coward.
This is the result of their efforts at setting certain expectations of their behaviour.
aha! You "expect!" There's yur trouble. Try not expecting. You'll lead a much happier life. Digg's users are not entitled to anything. Why would they be? Because they hit the site, drove up the advertising revinue? At what cost to them? You know... a sucker is born every minute. Maybe the users that clicked on ads and bought something are suckers. The ones that expect something for moving a finger up and down are delusional.
In other words you would like those who made the site's success possible
Whoa, nelly. I have no idea... but I think its likely that the users that did this craziness are in the tiniest minority, and have bought nothing. Just a guess.
But they can't win. Even though the law and the MPAA/RIAA is wrong. They have a right to provide for themselves, and a right to keep what they earned. They have no moral obligation to tilt this windmill, and lose their shirts doing it.
excuse is likely to achieve the flight properties of a ton of bricks with their audience.
Hopefully, yes. I'd really like to see the audience that is revolting right now go away.
Digg has no power. Its possible they could have "grown" some and legally fought against the litigation when it comes... but... they're a business, not some moral heroes or some cult religion. They are a business. They want to make money, not lose it in $500/hr increments.
yes... and I really have to work on my abuse. Where did you study? Was it... Digg? I think I know your work.
Digg is a business, then? Hmm. I wonder what follows from that.
I really don't think its ALL the users that are at odds. Sure, everyone has a beef with the RIAA/MPAA. But not everyone thinks so much of themselves that they throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way.
Maybe I got on late... but all I saw was the same non-information over and over, and claims that it was free speech and shouldn't be censored. But that really isn't speech. Just like money isn't speech, and threats aren't speech. Call it double-talk if you don't see the difference, and fire another one off at me. TIA
yes, hardly terrorism. But definately an attack. A malicious attack. More like a DoS attack, don't you think? Is cyber-terrorism not really terrorism? Definately vandalism though. Digg is an innocent, law abiding bystander, and the attackers are the twits. They are accomplishing nothing.
Though I am detecting sarcasm, I will ignore it for the sake of argument.
Would you call it censorship if someone posted your social security number, phone number, bank account numbers, etc, over and over and over, and Digg admins took it down?
That isn't speech. It isn't protected. The kids are just behaving badly. They are mad because they want it their way. What they are doing is selfish, and not at all helpful to fighting real censorship. They are a mob. A distration from real issues. A mindless crowd, copycatting each other.
They want to think it is, but its actually not Free Speech. What those kids are doing is NOT protected by any law anywere. Technically, what they are doing is harrassment. Maybe even terrorism.
ok, we got it... we got the number... thanks. It was fun, but the comment spam is making it not so fun. In fact, it left uncool on its way to annoying last night. If these idiot punk wanna be but aren't quite smart enough to be script kiddies are like this now, what are they gonna be like when they hit puberty??
I got a secret for you digg kids. Better than HD-DVD decoding, I swear.
*girls*
I know you're shy and funny looking, but you'd be surprised. Just go talk to her, and be nice, don't keep spouting off about this or that... just ask questions, find out what her interests are, what she likes to do and you'll do great.
I think you're right. Star Trek shields protect against energy weapons and objects with kinetic energy, which bounce off. The deflector creates a field that protects against radiation and tiny particles, pushes them out of the way when travelling at WARP speeds.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the chances that she would date a murderer... and then marry another one? Math dudes, help us out, lets see some clever combinations and permutations on this one... and don't forget the "a woman has a 1 in x chance of dating a murderer, but a 1 in y chance of marrying another after dating the first..."
In the US, in almost all instances, prosecutors are given full immunity from prosecution for anything they may do wrong. This is not to protect them from incrimination, lawsuit retaliation or the like, though it does somewhat, but it is for a specific and grave purpose (prosecutors seem to forget or ignore): its so they can afford to be just.
All they will ever get, if they cross the line, is slaps on the wrist, if even that, so many of them use this as an advantage, a strategy... and will always cross the line exaggerating facts, inflating charges.
On the face of it, in the US, it appears that the cards are stacked in favor of the defendant --all that "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense. In the US, no criminal court of law at any level will ever find you "innocent." The best you can hope for is dismissal of charges before its determined, or "not guilty."
That's what I was thinking... but, if threatening/harrassing emails are a crime, then this isn't too far off.
Life isn't fair. But Justice should be. Let the punishment fit the crime. Idle hands are the devil's playthings. OK, one more cliche... don't do the crime, if you don't have a dime.
I know the penalties are real.
But I've always felt it was wrong to attribute to companies, espescially large ones, the equal rights of the individual. Some day I will fight that, and promote the ideal that the individual's rights supercede the majority's authority. Call it crime, and immoral, and let the punishment fit the crime. When the the victim has no damages, the punishment should be slight. But it rarely is. When they catch you, they punish you for everyone else that did it and got away with it. Life is so unfair. But Justice shouldn't be.
THANK YOU TOO!! :P
What is it with you BOFH and books??
Seriously, much appreciated. Its good to glimpse the forest.
THANK YOU!!!!! Nice post, mod up!!
Thanks for trying. I was hoping for some cold facts, but at least you tried. I guess its more important that you are slammed for your heresy rather than me have some understanding of just what is (constructively) wrong with linux. I would say it could be as simple as the mere mucking up of directories, adding more directories starting with the same letter, or couple of letters, that are unrelated, when there was no reason to do so. But... my my mentor also scoffs at the tab-completion I like so much (and tells me I'm lazy), so I don't think that's it.
petrus4, I need your help. My BSD mentor has pretty much disowned me because a few weeks ago I installed Edgy on some old box I had lying around. (At the university I work for, outside of the user space, there is Windows, Solaris, and Linux servers. Linux is by far the most prevalent, and I figured it was time I stopped excluding myself from possible income sources.) What's the big deal? The penguinistas have become a lot less annoying in the last couple years about their cause, and Linux is progressing towards a stately adolescence. I guess what I'm asking is... where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?
look... no hard feelings.. I'll curb my use of the word (I was really just trying to put myself in the mindset of an ambitious prosecutor). Appears there's actual stories appearing on Digg now. School night, and all.
I appreciate the dialogue!
Combine my observation with the one that came out last year and it means that it only takes a handful who care to cause a problem. Seems fairly straightforward.
...what this may do to your sense of self-importance, but I'm not remotely angry.
... an attempt to get you to lighten up and spread sunshine instead of feces.
So you're flopping positions... "enough to cause a problem" isn't "enough to make the site popular and successful."
You're the one who started by throwing around the terrorism buzzword.
And I'll pay for that for the rest of my days, apparently. Actually, you've used it more than I have. Well...actually, what I wrote, and only once, was maybe. See... the "maybe" is a quantifier... meaning I had suspended judgement. If Digg employees are fearful because of this tirade, and that's not inconcievable, then they might feel that way. Poor choice of word, MAYBE... but a few more posts on what I suggested 8 posts ago and I think it will be out of your system.
You are not, in any way, qualified to judge what is and is not considered speech.
Well... there's something you don't know. You have no idea if that statement is true or not. And no way to prove it either way.
I fear...
fear leads to anger
Abusive then. You are God-aweful abusive. Your pugalistic taunting has kept me entertained, though.
You will have to try harder than that to make me angry.
There is no try... it was a movie reference
And when you're met the girls
?
But please, I'll do the talking.
If that's what you wanna call it - fine. And I'll have sex with them.
Go ahead and add hypocrisy to your list of character faults. That's a good boy.
Hey, thanks for the critique. Now... what about you? Not so shiny, are you? Well, I don't judge, but I do tend to protect myself. I know... selfish... adding it to the list...
Apparently it's enough of them that it's causing them a problem.
Didn't it come out last year that it only takes a handful to manipulate Digg? I'm not sure your observation means anything.
That's also a completely irrelevant to the fact that you're trying to make it out to be something far more sinister than it is.
Um... what? Who's making something out of nothing? CENSORSHIP oooooooo. Theres the bullshit. Besides, I wouldn't say far more... I was looking at it as the worst it could be. It certainly isn't nothing. And I'd say it is... sinister. What is happening at Digg is a bunch of users drunk with power. Evil takes many forms, some, unlike this, that really hurt people physically, but what's happening isn't harmless. I think its probably the equivalent of trashing someone's car, or... business facade. You think Kevin isn't afraid of his users now?
When were you appointed, Justice Catmistake?
I think were reaching the shallow grave of your abuse and intellect. You can't argue the point, so attack the individual making it.
Maybe if you'd tone down the bullshit hyperbole and stuck to facts...
Likewise my eloquent adversary...
But I don't think that will do it for you. Tell ya what, I'll keep my hyperbole, and you keep your festering anger and abuse. How much angrier can you get? Lets see. I can feel your anger, use it! Strike me down!
If everyone simply folds, MPAA/RIAA are indeed guaranteed to win.
Does everyone include these "valuable" users who "made the site a success?" Again, there is no obligation on their part to do anything. If they stood up, yes, heros, win or lose. But not being a hero doesn't make one a coward.
This is the result of their efforts at setting certain expectations of their behaviour.
aha! You "expect!" There's yur trouble. Try not expecting. You'll lead a much happier life. Digg's users are not entitled to anything. Why would they be? Because they hit the site, drove up the advertising revinue? At what cost to them? You know... a sucker is born every minute. Maybe the users that clicked on ads and bought something are suckers. The ones that expect something for moving a finger up and down are delusional.
In other words you would like those who made the site's success possible
Whoa, nelly. I have no idea... but I think its likely that the users that did this craziness are in the tiniest minority, and have bought nothing. Just a guess.
But they can't win. Even though the law and the MPAA/RIAA is wrong. They have a right to provide for themselves, and a right to keep what they earned. They have no moral obligation to tilt this windmill, and lose their shirts doing it.
excuse is likely to achieve the flight properties of a ton of bricks with their audience.
Hopefully, yes. I'd really like to see the audience that is revolting right now go away.
anymore then some guards at Abu Ghraib were
Wow, you must really be pissed at Digg.
Digg has no power. Its possible they could have "grown" some and legally fought against the litigation when it comes... but... they're a business, not some moral heroes or some cult religion. They are a business. They want to make money, not lose it in $500/hr increments.
yes... and I really have to work on my abuse. Where did you study? Was it... Digg? I think I know your work.
Digg is a business, then? Hmm. I wonder what follows from that.
I really don't think its ALL the users that are at odds. Sure, everyone has a beef with the RIAA/MPAA. But not everyone thinks so much of themselves that they throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way.
Maybe I got on late... but all I saw was the same non-information over and over, and claims that it was free speech and shouldn't be censored. But that really isn't speech. Just like money isn't speech, and threats aren't speech. Call it double-talk if you don't see the difference, and fire another one off at me. TIA
yes, hardly terrorism. But definately an attack. A malicious attack. More like a DoS attack, don't you think? Is cyber-terrorism not really terrorism? Definately vandalism though. Digg is an innocent, law abiding bystander, and the attackers are the twits. They are accomplishing nothing.
Though I am detecting sarcasm, I will ignore it for the sake of argument.
Would you call it censorship if someone posted your social security number, phone number, bank account numbers, etc, over and over and over, and Digg admins took it down?
That isn't speech. It isn't protected. The kids are just behaving badly. They are mad because they want it their way. What they are doing is selfish, and not at all helpful to fighting real censorship. They are a mob. A distration from real issues. A mindless crowd, copycatting each other.
The crowd is untruth. (S.K.)
Come on... Karma, go get 'em.
Whatever. Bombarding a site with the same repetitious non-news is not speech.
That's not speech. That's vandalism, harrassment... cyber-terrorism, maybe... but not speech.
Repitition isn't speech. Taking down a site isn't speech. What's happening at Digg is harrassment, and vandalism, possibly terrorism.
They want to think it is, but its actually not Free Speech. What those kids are doing is NOT protected by any law anywere. Technically, what they are doing is harrassment. Maybe even terrorism.
ok, we got it... we got the number... thanks. It was fun, but the comment spam is making it not so fun. In fact, it left uncool on its way to annoying last night. If these idiot punk wanna be but aren't quite smart enough to be script kiddies are like this now, what are they gonna be like when they hit puberty??
I got a secret for you digg kids. Better than HD-DVD decoding, I swear.
*girls*
I know you're shy and funny looking, but you'd be surprised. Just go talk to her, and be nice, don't keep spouting off about this or that... just ask questions, find out what her interests are, what she likes to do and you'll do great.
This isn't anything new. Its not the "math" or the "science" or the "law" of anything. Its just kerning. Along with ligatures, built into most fonts.
I think you're right. Star Trek shields protect against energy weapons and objects with kinetic energy, which bounce off. The deflector creates a field that protects against radiation and tiny particles, pushes them out of the way when travelling at WARP speeds.