We can all argue about what fair use of copyrighted materials should be, but I think we can also more-or-less agree that deliberately stripping off a creator's name is uncool. Of course, the conduct of the defendants in question (RTFA, they were shock-jock DJs who responded to the photographer's cease-and-desist with a smear campaign chock full o' slander and libel and just-plain-lies) probably made it a lot easier for the judge to apply the bitch-slap to 'em. They deserved it.
Ok, thanks. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area lately there has been scandal after scandal concerning sloppy forensics lab operation, theft of evidence, and police departments conspiring to hide histories of police officer misconduct form defense teams. This would have been just one more nail in the coffin.
So to what extent does this "epidemic of mycoplasma contamination" increase the potential for false-positives on DNA matching tests, such as used in criminal investigation or paternity cases? Does a given lab or lab-equipment manufacturer have a common strain of contamination which increases the number of "always match" markers above the threshhold defined for claiming a match?
I've been wrongfully fired before, being made the bearer-of-blame for a manager who made the wrong decisions and hoped that the blame would walk out the door with me. I was (and actually still am, gotta love knowledge of trade secrets and dirty secrets and of contacts made with said company's partners) in a position to hurt the company badly in retaliation. But I didn't do so. Why, oh why, in this era of tech workers who exhibit such open contempt of non-techies and thinking the sun shines out their asses?
1. I'm a better person than the manager in question. I have ethics, and stooping to low revenge is a breach in ethics.
2. Karma works. The company in question has run into troubles due to said bad decisions.
3. Karma works, redux. There are plenty of people who know point 1, and will stand by me in references and "unofficial" contacts. If I compromised myself, they wouldn't and shouldn't.
4. In this valley, everybody knows everybody (or knows someone who does... helllllllo, LinkedIn). Bad firings are known for what they are, regardless of court. So are acts of revenge, regardless of court. I landed on my feet, am in a much better situation than I would be today if I were at the old company, and will continue to do well.
None of the above makes me in any way unique. Most people are big enough to behave that way, or to semi-quote Chris Rock, "You say you take care of your kids? Of COURSE you're supposed to take care of your kids, dumbass!" It's the expected default behavior. It's the ones who don't who make the news... and Slashdot.
Now, perhaps you meant "it happens in every industry", but this IS Slashdot. Tech is (ostensibly) what it's about here.
To be fair, we don't know WHY the person was fired (though we do know his personality allows for revenge). I'm not going to automatically side with him just because he's a fellow tech "worker bee". I know plenty of "worker bee" IT folks who I wouldn't hire to water my lawn, much less care for my datacenter. I also know a couple of CEOs I'd trust with my bank account numbers. Assumption of righteousness and evil based upon job title... that's just wrong.
All that being said, I'd probably buy the gentleman in question a beer, but I'd never hire him or put him in a position of trust. The ability of people to justify breaches of trust is well-night infinite, and someone who will engage in acts of revenge can be counted upon to do it again, whether they deserved to be fired or not. This is a Pyrhhic victory at best, and while amusing to us, is career-suicide for him.
Hope it was worth it. Hope his family (if any) thinks so too.
When you walk away from a job there is nothing more satisfying than letting it fall to shit after you go. Doing something on the way out or after you leave just proves you didn't have any positive effect on the business.
Ah, but the difference between "let" and "cause" is the difference between schaenfreude and "boy, you got a purty mouth". Depending upon the mood of the judge, that difference is literal.
From what I have seen in interviews, etc. Lady Gaga seems to have her head screwed on straight, a lot moreso than self-obsessed legal departments and Elvis-hip-gyration-fearing for-profit TV preachers. She's messing with the social meme-scape (there, I invented a word!) and doing so with intelligence. No surprise at all that she adores Weird Al and would think that being included in a Weird Al album is a high honor for a pop singer.
And, no surprise at all that her label's lawyer-trash didn't bother to talk to her first. From my second-hand experience with label legaloids, they hold the performers in barely-concealed contempt, the fans in fully unconcealed contempt. Dante is not my model of theological thought, but I can agree with him on one thing: Bolgia Nine must be packed with RIAA lawyers and the legal departments that try to chain down the performers.
What is it with those people? Do they really want to be (rightfully) classified as terrorists? Do they really want to find out that that means? These boys are about to learn what it's like to go up against a governmental agency that has full prosecutorial immunity. If they're grabbed and shown what "rubber hose cryptography" means, nobody's going to miss them or come looking for them. They won't have a lawyer, or a trial. They won't have rights. They will find that a black T-shirt and a r0x0r screen name won't protect them from men with guns and the ability to squeeze informants as hard as they like to learn who the Lulz people are.
This isn't a game, in the truest sense of the phrase. The worst thing is that as a result of this, laws are going to be passed that are even more draconian than what we already have, and those laws will be upheld. Thanks, Lulz. Thanks a lot for handing a whole bunch of ammo to the security state and permission to use it against ordinary people. Thanks for shilling for the DHS. Thanks for being useful idiots to the surveillance state.
No, you catch what you can. If you get an instigator, that's excellent. It's the prime goal; these people are enemies of everyone around them (dare I edge up to the "T-word"?). But "useful idiots", when they are encountered, should not be thrown back because they are too small. Does it bother me that the instigators may go free? Yes. I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, I do not believe for one second that "provoked to riot" gets anyone off the hook or is cause for leniency. If the investigation-trail exposes a "useful idiot" with blood or broken glass on his hands, off to jail they go, and then you keep hunting. This isn't a riot over police murdering innocents then conspiring to cover it up. This is drunken frat-boys and poor losers who believe that a lost hockey game is just cause to burn cars and destroy stores, and who need to be punished hard enough to leave a life-long lesson.
Humanity has instincts and primal urges. It is our ability to overcome those primal urges that sets us apart from shit-flinging monkeys. If someone lacks sufficient willpower to resist mob-think over something as trivial as a hockey game, or thinks they can shelter behind that excuse, they ARE a shit-flinging monkey. We don't let those out of cages. You're either sufficiently evolved to call yourself a human being (and warrant human respect) or you're not. If someone is so weak that they give in to the slightest excuse to break windows, stab people, loot buildings, and set cars on fire, they do not need to be wandering in the streets. They need to be locked up because they have conclusively proven they cannot be trusted not to hurt others on impulse. If they do not have a functional conscience strong enough to overcome their base instincts, maybe some harsh punishment will instigate a lasting fear of further punishment that WILL be strong enough to overcome those base instincts. I'm good with either as a motivator; behave with human dignity because it's the right thing to do, or behave with human dignity because you're afraid of a thorough ass-kicking if you don't. Every person demonstrates on a daily basis which technique motivates them. The goal is to have people who can behave like humans free (regardless of motive for acceptable behavior) and to have those who demonstrate they cannot control the urge to violence in concertina-wire cages (regardless of excuse).
Or, to put it in hockey-terms, five-month major in the penalty box for "useful idiots", permanent suspension for instigators.
It doesn't matter whether there were "anarchists" looking to cause trouble by "starting things". It's zero excuse at all. Everyone who participated, regardless of whether they intended to riot as a premeditated act or not, is a willing participant. A criminal. "I saw someone else doing it first!" is not an excuse to break windows, stab people, torch cop cars, or loot. And it should not be cause to reduce the punishment.
Stop making excuses and pointing fingers. The reason that people rioted is that every last one of them who participated wanted to riot, had a choice to make on whether to riot or not, and chose to break windows, to attack people, to trash whatever car they were closest to, and to steal from stores. There are no extenuating circumstances. If a thousand people did it, a thousand people need to be in jail, not ten or a hundred. This isn't "harmless childhood pranks" or "social justice" (I swear, I want to shoot people who claim that as an excuse for stealing big-screen TVs. Literally.); it's blood and thuggery.
Extra punishment for agent provacateurs? Yes. Free pass for drunks and hockey-garbage? NO.
Ah, yes. "Flamebait". "I don't agree with you, so I will mod you down so that your opinion is never heard.".
Climate change is not a theory. It's a religion, and it demands its tithe of obedience, it's tithe of cash, and silence from the unbeliever. It is structured as a church, with its priests, its enforcers, and its inquisitioners. I'd almost rather deal with jihadists; at least they're honest about their hatred and have the balls to sacrifice themselves in the fight instead of dispatching lawyers and cops to take the risks.
Why anthropogenic global warming is not a "theory":
If there is warming, it's claimed to be because of human activity.
If there is cooling, it's "climate CHANGE", and hey! That counts! And it's because of human activity anyway.
If there is no change at all, it's because the climate panickers' legislative efforts "worked", which is why they should be in charge of everything and everyone.
There is no condition which can arise which does not somehow fit into this "theory". There is no refutability; it is therefore not science. The scientific method requires that any hypothesis has a method of refutability; climate change/global warming as it is being peddled does not. But as long as there are research grants and "green" subsidies (big ones!) to be had, as long as it puts "white man's burden" thought into political and legal reality, and as long as it forcibly transfers wealth from the West to nations hostile to the West in the form of carbon credits... it's not about climate or science, it's about power and money. Summary of climate change politics: "I want a few tens of billions of oil company money under MY control, and the ability to pauperize anyone who dares try to stand up to me."
Don't worry, though. I'm sure the eco-tards will figure out a way to blame "solar change" on George Bush and on Republicans, then figure out a way to get some nice fat tax credits, subsidies, and "czar-level" appointments that will make the cash and power flow to them and away from the big bad boogeymen.
If you don't touch anything else in the Apple ecosystem, best just ignore it completely.
Why ignore when you can hate? Hate tastes so much better and lets you off the hook for your own failures.
Apple haters are to Apple what the Mormon church is to gays and the KKK is to non-whites. (The same applies to MS haters and Linux haters) The nice thing is, they self-identify. You know who they are, because haters can no more keep their crap inside them than a 3-month-old baby.
Germany is not phasing out nuclear power. They will need to import power in the short- and medium-term from France and England, both of which are nuclear-heavy (particularly France). Germany will still use nuclear-generated electricity; they're just playing a "not in my back yard" game. And by "they", I mean politicians which are pandering to their electorate to try to keep in power.
Long-term, they are putting themselves at the mercy of Russia. The NordStream natural gas pipeline will eventually be providing fuel, which can and will be used as a political lever (Russia has successfully done so several times in the past to strong-arm NATO over membership for the Ukraine and Georgia). Also, natural gas is a fossil fuel just like oil, and if the CO2 boogeyman is still the boogeyman, well... how does that not cause problems? On a per-megawatt basis, nuclear power remains much cheaper than natural gas, and a full decimal order of magnitude cheaper than solar (recall how far north Germany is. That's a problem for solar.) Switching from nuclear power to natural gas is not a step forward, economically, politically, ecologically
This is just another example of politicians doing long-term harm for short-term political dominance.
...it's not anti-intellectualism. It's laziness. What's being rejected isn't "intellect"; it's the idea that you have to work for reward. "I'm smarter than everyone else, I shouldn't HAVE to work to get the best pay! My mere presence and occasional acerbic comments on the inadequacy of others should be enough to warrant a six-figure salary and accelerated vesting!"
Not all geeks, of course. I would even challenge that such a person isn't a geek, because they don't DO anything. Having good tools (in this case, raw intellect) doesn't make you a craftsman, but we all know people who think that ownership of specific bits of tech tools (Android this, iOS that, Linux the other-thing, scripts downloaded from rootkit.org) makes you a tech god. Tell me, when was the last time you saw an Apple-hater accomplish anything important? Or the last time you saw a Windows-hater have anything to contribute to a discussion other than vitriol? The loud aggression masks a lack of ability. It's a form of counterpunching, to deflect the "oh yeah, what have YOU done that has geek cred?" before it can be said.
In fact, let's just agree that people like that... the self-labeled "geeks" who exhibit what can be taken as anti-intellectualism... aren't geeks at all. They are the coat-tail riders coasting on the efforts of others.
In any event, all of the soldiers in the US Army I know take the Constitution much more seriously than most of the jackasses on Capitol Hill, who place their political careers above... well... everything. I don't advocate a military junta, of course not. The ones doing it would be politicians in uniform, not soldiers, and it would be more of the same. What I'm saying is that there is a reason that a new, entirely political-in-nature bureau with a de facto prosecutorial immunity (the TSA) was created rather than giving the duty of airport security to local police, the military, or the FBI. By creating a new agency from scratch, you can populate its upper echelons with people prescreened to not have any real issue with grinding Constitutional protections into dust; you won't have to weed out the ones who won't play ball if they're never there to begin with. The aforementioned other agencies have people with inconvenient ideas about the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution (certainly not all of them, but enough to cause trouble). The TSA? No such problem. No problem at all. And that's not hyperbole.
Wouldn't a scarlet "A" tattooed on the forehead work better?
Oh, wait. That would require a trial. And a conviction. And facing your accuser. And a government that isn't becoming materially worse than the "terrorists" it claims it is protecting you from.
Sometimes I think the army is pointing their guns at the wrong would-be-oppressors.
One important thing to remember: the "Chinese government" is not monolithic. Its various components often act in defiance of each other, much moreso than in Western nations.
The Chinese civilian government is not the same entity as the Chinese Communist Party, which is not the same entity as the Chinese military. There have been numerous examples of this. One prime example was the incident in which a US recon aircraft, operating in international airspace, was buzzed by Chinese fighter jets... and one of them collided with the recon aircraft, crippling it (and killing the fighter pilot). The US aircraft was forced to land at the nearest airport, which was Chinese. The Chinese civilian government did not want to cause an incident by entering the aircraft (the interior of an aircraft is sovereign territory of the nation in which it is registered, in the same manner and law as the deck of a ship at sea). They agreed to return the aircraft and crew; at the time, WTO membership was being considered for China. The Chinese military disagreed, claiming the landing was illegal (even though the aircraft had broadcast numerous distress signals, and ICAO treaties to which China is signatory allow any aircraft in an emergency to land at any airport without prior authorization... never mind that the emergency had been caused by the actions of the Chinese military...) and in full defiance of the civilian government imprisoned the crew and disassembled the plane to learn its capabilities. Later, the crew were released, and the plane returned in neatly boxed pieces.
There is also frequently conflict between local governments, which are largely corruption-funded (land seizures in which farmlands are seized and a pittance paid for them, then sold by the local government to developers at enormous profit, operation of product-counterfeiting factories, etc.) and the national government, which wants it people to not have cause for protests and which wants to minimize external economic conflicts. National laws are passed, but are not enforced by local authorities, and appeals to the national government go unheeded.
Reaching a deal with "China" doesn't mean much, as its component pieces frequently ignore each other and the agreements the other Chinese entities have reached. Perhaps a deal will be reached between the Chinese civilian government and the US government calling for curbing Internet-based intrusions, but that is meaningless to the Chinese military, which will do as it sees fit regardless. This is a reality which everyone doing business in China eventually figures out; reaching a deal with the big boys in Beijing is just the start of the process, not the end, and appeals to Beijing when other entities reneg on the agreement will get you little.
Having the attack originate from the Chinese government itself is not quite the same as willfully turning a blind eye to pro-China activists or for-profit criminals. However, that behavior... knowingly harboring hostiles and giving them a free pass to attack outside entities... landed the Taliban a lot of trouble. We, the US, certainly aren't going to lob cruise missiles into Beijing just because someone there is trying to penetrate Google, but neither does either Google or the US have any duty to let it pass unchallenged. Host countries do have at least some responsibility for the activity of those it hosts.
China has some very serious external dependencies. Iron, coal (the high-grade stuff needed for coking steel, they have plenty of sulfur-laden crap-coal domestically), OIL, export markets for cash (remember, the yuan is not a full participant in international financial systems; they do their external trade mostly in dollars, somewhat in Euros).
The iron and coal comes largely from Australia. Look at recent power politics being played between Australia and China over Chinese attempts to buy majority ownership in Australian mining companies; when Australia blocked those sales, the Chinese retaliated by jailing visiting Australian mining company executives as "spies". That incident didn't last long, but it shows the Chinese feeling of vulnerability and the willingness to play hardball to address that. The oil comes from all over the world. Almost all of it travels via sea. And the number one naval power in the world, by an overwhelming margin? The United States. Look at recent Chinese military efforts to develop a blue-water navy, to secure external naval ports in China-friendly host nations (Venezuela, Pakistan), and to seize the disputed Paracel and Spratley Islands, which have billions of barrels of suspected oil reserves.
Then recall the economic event which Japan used as a reason to attack the United States in 1941: the American and British decision to deny oil to Japan due to their "activities" in Japan. Everyone involved has knows this is something that can get out of hand.
Actually, you can get Silverlight for OS/X easily enough directly from Microsoft. Intel Mac, OS/X 10.4.11 or better, Safari 3+ or Firefox 3+.
I'm not surprised it's not in the App Store yet, but I suspect it will be, as will MS Office for Mac. There's money to be made, and Microsoft be wantin' some o' dat. It's a lot more likely that Microsoft products will show up in the App Store than anything from Adobe, though. That's a pissfight you need a rain slicker for, not just boots. Let's see, what was that big yellow rubberized rain coat called again...
What percentage does a brick-and-mortal distributor take for boxed software? Okay, how about th next guy in line, the retailer? Betcha it adds up to a LOT more than 30%.
2) You have to live in a box and learn "our way" to stay there
3) We can change the rules at any time
This differs from Best Buy, MacWarehouse, etc. how? They have rules too. You break 'em, you're out.
It's almost dystopian, how the hell do they expect to attract developers with these kinds of restrictions?
By... paying them? And providing a reliable storefront? And discoverability? And stripping away the hassle, the 3% Visa Tithe, the losses due to chargebacks and the use of stolen credit card info, and potential security nightmares associated with having to deal with credit cards, etc. yourself? By freeing coders and content creators to code and create, instead of dealing with retail busywork?
The App Store sounds like a hell of a deal to me. 30%? As retail overheads go, that's a pittance.
*sigh* One in every crowd. You caught me, Grissom.
No, I do not "seriously think" blah blah blah. The text-replacement was a parting shot by the penetration team. The major goal of REPLACING THE TEXT was as a deterrent and to introduce paranoia. I thought the rest was taken-as-read and that I didn't have to stoop to parentheticals and subjunctive clauses, but... Slashdot, y'know? Next time I'll use small words.
In which case they are also rolling back the security flaw.
I suspect the major goal was to send the message "you're not as secure as you think you are" and inject some paranoia (and with it, operational slowdown).
Slashdot Mirror
Plus there would be the constant moist popping sounds as peoples' heads in Sebastopol* exploded from caaaaaaaaaancer.
* California
We can all argue about what fair use of copyrighted materials should be, but I think we can also more-or-less agree that deliberately stripping off a creator's name is uncool. Of course, the conduct of the defendants in question (RTFA, they were shock-jock DJs who responded to the photographer's cease-and-desist with a smear campaign chock full o' slander and libel and just-plain-lies) probably made it a lot easier for the judge to apply the bitch-slap to 'em. They deserved it.
Ok, thanks. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area lately there has been scandal after scandal concerning sloppy forensics lab operation, theft of evidence, and police departments conspiring to hide histories of police officer misconduct form defense teams. This would have been just one more nail in the coffin.
So to what extent does this "epidemic of mycoplasma contamination" increase the potential for false-positives on DNA matching tests, such as used in criminal investigation or paternity cases? Does a given lab or lab-equipment manufacturer have a common strain of contamination which increases the number of "always match" markers above the threshhold defined for claiming a match?
It's not an IT thing. Everyone does this.
Well, no, not everybody.
I've been wrongfully fired before, being made the bearer-of-blame for a manager who made the wrong decisions and hoped that the blame would walk out the door with me. I was (and actually still am, gotta love knowledge of trade secrets and dirty secrets and of contacts made with said company's partners) in a position to hurt the company badly in retaliation. But I didn't do so. Why, oh why, in this era of tech workers who exhibit such open contempt of non-techies and thinking the sun shines out their asses?
1. I'm a better person than the manager in question. I have ethics, and stooping to low revenge is a breach in ethics.
2. Karma works. The company in question has run into troubles due to said bad decisions.
3. Karma works, redux. There are plenty of people who know point 1, and will stand by me in references and "unofficial" contacts. If I compromised myself, they wouldn't and shouldn't.
4. In this valley, everybody knows everybody (or knows someone who does... helllllllo, LinkedIn). Bad firings are known for what they are, regardless of court. So are acts of revenge, regardless of court. I landed on my feet, am in a much better situation than I would be today if I were at the old company, and will continue to do well.
None of the above makes me in any way unique. Most people are big enough to behave that way, or to semi-quote Chris Rock, "You say you take care of your kids? Of COURSE you're supposed to take care of your kids, dumbass!" It's the expected default behavior. It's the ones who don't who make the news... and Slashdot.
Now, perhaps you meant "it happens in every industry", but this IS Slashdot. Tech is (ostensibly) what it's about here.
To be fair, we don't know WHY the person was fired (though we do know his personality allows for revenge). I'm not going to automatically side with him just because he's a fellow tech "worker bee". I know plenty of "worker bee" IT folks who I wouldn't hire to water my lawn, much less care for my datacenter. I also know a couple of CEOs I'd trust with my bank account numbers. Assumption of righteousness and evil based upon job title... that's just wrong.
All that being said, I'd probably buy the gentleman in question a beer, but I'd never hire him or put him in a position of trust. The ability of people to justify breaches of trust is well-night infinite, and someone who will engage in acts of revenge can be counted upon to do it again, whether they deserved to be fired or not. This is a Pyrhhic victory at best, and while amusing to us, is career-suicide for him.
Hope it was worth it. Hope his family (if any) thinks so too.
When you walk away from a job there is nothing more satisfying than letting it fall to shit after you go. Doing something on the way out or after you leave just proves you didn't have any positive effect on the business.
Ah, but the difference between "let" and "cause" is the difference between schaenfreude and "boy, you got a purty mouth". Depending upon the mood of the judge, that difference is literal.
He did get lucky.
From what I have seen in interviews, etc. Lady Gaga seems to have her head screwed on straight, a lot moreso than self-obsessed legal departments and Elvis-hip-gyration-fearing for-profit TV preachers. She's messing with the social meme-scape (there, I invented a word!) and doing so with intelligence. No surprise at all that she adores Weird Al and would think that being included in a Weird Al album is a high honor for a pop singer.
And, no surprise at all that her label's lawyer-trash didn't bother to talk to her first. From my second-hand experience with label legaloids, they hold the performers in barely-concealed contempt, the fans in fully unconcealed contempt. Dante is not my model of theological thought, but I can agree with him on one thing: Bolgia Nine must be packed with RIAA lawyers and the legal departments that try to chain down the performers.
What is it with those people? Do they really want to be (rightfully) classified as terrorists? Do they really want to find out that that means? These boys are about to learn what it's like to go up against a governmental agency that has full prosecutorial immunity. If they're grabbed and shown what "rubber hose cryptography" means, nobody's going to miss them or come looking for them. They won't have a lawyer, or a trial. They won't have rights. They will find that a black T-shirt and a r0x0r screen name won't protect them from men with guns and the ability to squeeze informants as hard as they like to learn who the Lulz people are.
This isn't a game, in the truest sense of the phrase. The worst thing is that as a result of this, laws are going to be passed that are even more draconian than what we already have, and those laws will be upheld. Thanks, Lulz. Thanks a lot for handing a whole bunch of ammo to the security state and permission to use it against ordinary people. Thanks for shilling for the DHS. Thanks for being useful idiots to the surveillance state.
No, you catch what you can. If you get an instigator, that's excellent. It's the prime goal; these people are enemies of everyone around them (dare I edge up to the "T-word"?). But "useful idiots", when they are encountered, should not be thrown back because they are too small. Does it bother me that the instigators may go free? Yes. I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, I do not believe for one second that "provoked to riot" gets anyone off the hook or is cause for leniency. If the investigation-trail exposes a "useful idiot" with blood or broken glass on his hands, off to jail they go, and then you keep hunting. This isn't a riot over police murdering innocents then conspiring to cover it up. This is drunken frat-boys and poor losers who believe that a lost hockey game is just cause to burn cars and destroy stores, and who need to be punished hard enough to leave a life-long lesson.
Humanity has instincts and primal urges. It is our ability to overcome those primal urges that sets us apart from shit-flinging monkeys. If someone lacks sufficient willpower to resist mob-think over something as trivial as a hockey game, or thinks they can shelter behind that excuse, they ARE a shit-flinging monkey. We don't let those out of cages. You're either sufficiently evolved to call yourself a human being (and warrant human respect) or you're not. If someone is so weak that they give in to the slightest excuse to break windows, stab people, loot buildings, and set cars on fire, they do not need to be wandering in the streets. They need to be locked up because they have conclusively proven they cannot be trusted not to hurt others on impulse. If they do not have a functional conscience strong enough to overcome their base instincts, maybe some harsh punishment will instigate a lasting fear of further punishment that WILL be strong enough to overcome those base instincts. I'm good with either as a motivator; behave with human dignity because it's the right thing to do, or behave with human dignity because you're afraid of a thorough ass-kicking if you don't. Every person demonstrates on a daily basis which technique motivates them. The goal is to have people who can behave like humans free (regardless of motive for acceptable behavior) and to have those who demonstrate they cannot control the urge to violence in concertina-wire cages (regardless of excuse).
Or, to put it in hockey-terms, five-month major in the penalty box for "useful idiots", permanent suspension for instigators.
It doesn't matter whether there were "anarchists" looking to cause trouble by "starting things". It's zero excuse at all. Everyone who participated, regardless of whether they intended to riot as a premeditated act or not, is a willing participant. A criminal. "I saw someone else doing it first!" is not an excuse to break windows, stab people, torch cop cars, or loot. And it should not be cause to reduce the punishment.
Stop making excuses and pointing fingers. The reason that people rioted is that every last one of them who participated wanted to riot, had a choice to make on whether to riot or not, and chose to break windows, to attack people, to trash whatever car they were closest to, and to steal from stores. There are no extenuating circumstances. If a thousand people did it, a thousand people need to be in jail, not ten or a hundred. This isn't "harmless childhood pranks" or "social justice" (I swear, I want to shoot people who claim that as an excuse for stealing big-screen TVs. Literally.); it's blood and thuggery.
Extra punishment for agent provacateurs? Yes. Free pass for drunks and hockey-garbage? NO.
Ah, yes. "Flamebait". "I don't agree with you, so I will mod you down so that your opinion is never heard.".
Climate change is not a theory. It's a religion, and it demands its tithe of obedience, it's tithe of cash, and silence from the unbeliever. It is structured as a church, with its priests, its enforcers, and its inquisitioners. I'd almost rather deal with jihadists; at least they're honest about their hatred and have the balls to sacrifice themselves in the fight instead of dispatching lawyers and cops to take the risks.
Why anthropogenic global warming is not a "theory":
If there is warming, it's claimed to be because of human activity.
If there is cooling, it's "climate CHANGE", and hey! That counts! And it's because of human activity anyway.
If there is no change at all, it's because the climate panickers' legislative efforts "worked", which is why they should be in charge of everything and everyone.
There is no condition which can arise which does not somehow fit into this "theory". There is no refutability; it is therefore not science. The scientific method requires that any hypothesis has a method of refutability; climate change/global warming as it is being peddled does not. But as long as there are research grants and "green" subsidies (big ones!) to be had, as long as it puts "white man's burden" thought into political and legal reality, and as long as it forcibly transfers wealth from the West to nations hostile to the West in the form of carbon credits... it's not about climate or science, it's about power and money. Summary of climate change politics: "I want a few tens of billions of oil company money under MY control, and the ability to pauperize anyone who dares try to stand up to me."
Don't worry, though. I'm sure the eco-tards will figure out a way to blame "solar change" on George Bush and on Republicans, then figure out a way to get some nice fat tax credits, subsidies, and "czar-level" appointments that will make the cash and power flow to them and away from the big bad boogeymen.
You've just identified the origin of Apple-haters: geeks who think they should be on a pedestal, but aren't.
If you don't touch anything else in the Apple ecosystem, best just ignore it completely.
Why ignore when you can hate? Hate tastes so much better and lets you off the hook for your own failures.
Apple haters are to Apple what the Mormon church is to gays and the KKK is to non-whites. (The same applies to MS haters and Linux haters) The nice thing is, they self-identify. You know who they are, because haters can no more keep their crap inside them than a 3-month-old baby.
Germany is not phasing out nuclear power. They will need to import power in the short- and medium-term from France and England, both of which are nuclear-heavy (particularly France). Germany will still use nuclear-generated electricity; they're just playing a "not in my back yard" game. And by "they", I mean politicians which are pandering to their electorate to try to keep in power.
Long-term, they are putting themselves at the mercy of Russia. The NordStream natural gas pipeline will eventually be providing fuel, which can and will be used as a political lever (Russia has successfully done so several times in the past to strong-arm NATO over membership for the Ukraine and Georgia). Also, natural gas is a fossil fuel just like oil, and if the CO2 boogeyman is still the boogeyman, well... how does that not cause problems? On a per-megawatt basis, nuclear power remains much cheaper than natural gas, and a full decimal order of magnitude cheaper than solar (recall how far north Germany is. That's a problem for solar.) Switching from nuclear power to natural gas is not a step forward, economically, politically, ecologically
This is just another example of politicians doing long-term harm for short-term political dominance.
...it's not anti-intellectualism. It's laziness. What's being rejected isn't "intellect"; it's the idea that you have to work for reward. "I'm smarter than everyone else, I shouldn't HAVE to work to get the best pay! My mere presence and occasional acerbic comments on the inadequacy of others should be enough to warrant a six-figure salary and accelerated vesting!"
Not all geeks, of course. I would even challenge that such a person isn't a geek, because they don't DO anything. Having good tools (in this case, raw intellect) doesn't make you a craftsman, but we all know people who think that ownership of specific bits of tech tools (Android this, iOS that, Linux the other-thing, scripts downloaded from rootkit.org) makes you a tech god. Tell me, when was the last time you saw an Apple-hater accomplish anything important? Or the last time you saw a Windows-hater have anything to contribute to a discussion other than vitriol? The loud aggression masks a lack of ability. It's a form of counterpunching, to deflect the "oh yeah, what have YOU done that has geek cred?" before it can be said.
In fact, let's just agree that people like that... the self-labeled "geeks" who exhibit what can be taken as anti-intellectualism... aren't geeks at all. They are the coat-tail riders coasting on the efforts of others.
Hyperbole. Internet.
In any event, all of the soldiers in the US Army I know take the Constitution much more seriously than most of the jackasses on Capitol Hill, who place their political careers above... well... everything. I don't advocate a military junta, of course not. The ones doing it would be politicians in uniform, not soldiers, and it would be more of the same. What I'm saying is that there is a reason that a new, entirely political-in-nature bureau with a de facto prosecutorial immunity (the TSA) was created rather than giving the duty of airport security to local police, the military, or the FBI. By creating a new agency from scratch, you can populate its upper echelons with people prescreened to not have any real issue with grinding Constitutional protections into dust; you won't have to weed out the ones who won't play ball if they're never there to begin with. The aforementioned other agencies have people with inconvenient ideas about the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution (certainly not all of them, but enough to cause trouble). The TSA? No such problem. No problem at all. And that's not hyperbole.
Wouldn't a scarlet "A" tattooed on the forehead work better?
Oh, wait. That would require a trial. And a conviction. And facing your accuser. And a government that isn't becoming materially worse than the "terrorists" it claims it is protecting you from.
Sometimes I think the army is pointing their guns at the wrong would-be-oppressors.
One important thing to remember: the "Chinese government" is not monolithic. Its various components often act in defiance of each other, much moreso than in Western nations.
The Chinese civilian government is not the same entity as the Chinese Communist Party, which is not the same entity as the Chinese military. There have been numerous examples of this. One prime example was the incident in which a US recon aircraft, operating in international airspace, was buzzed by Chinese fighter jets... and one of them collided with the recon aircraft, crippling it (and killing the fighter pilot). The US aircraft was forced to land at the nearest airport, which was Chinese. The Chinese civilian government did not want to cause an incident by entering the aircraft (the interior of an aircraft is sovereign territory of the nation in which it is registered, in the same manner and law as the deck of a ship at sea). They agreed to return the aircraft and crew; at the time, WTO membership was being considered for China. The Chinese military disagreed, claiming the landing was illegal (even though the aircraft had broadcast numerous distress signals, and ICAO treaties to which China is signatory allow any aircraft in an emergency to land at any airport without prior authorization... never mind that the emergency had been caused by the actions of the Chinese military...) and in full defiance of the civilian government imprisoned the crew and disassembled the plane to learn its capabilities. Later, the crew were released, and the plane returned in neatly boxed pieces.
There is also frequently conflict between local governments, which are largely corruption-funded (land seizures in which farmlands are seized and a pittance paid for them, then sold by the local government to developers at enormous profit, operation of product-counterfeiting factories, etc.) and the national government, which wants it people to not have cause for protests and which wants to minimize external economic conflicts. National laws are passed, but are not enforced by local authorities, and appeals to the national government go unheeded.
Reaching a deal with "China" doesn't mean much, as its component pieces frequently ignore each other and the agreements the other Chinese entities have reached. Perhaps a deal will be reached between the Chinese civilian government and the US government calling for curbing Internet-based intrusions, but that is meaningless to the Chinese military, which will do as it sees fit regardless. This is a reality which everyone doing business in China eventually figures out; reaching a deal with the big boys in Beijing is just the start of the process, not the end, and appeals to Beijing when other entities reneg on the agreement will get you little.
+1 Insightful.
Having the attack originate from the Chinese government itself is not quite the same as willfully turning a blind eye to pro-China activists or for-profit criminals. However, that behavior... knowingly harboring hostiles and giving them a free pass to attack outside entities... landed the Taliban a lot of trouble. We, the US, certainly aren't going to lob cruise missiles into Beijing just because someone there is trying to penetrate Google, but neither does either Google or the US have any duty to let it pass unchallenged. Host countries do have at least some responsibility for the activity of those it hosts.
China has some very serious external dependencies. Iron, coal (the high-grade stuff needed for coking steel, they have plenty of sulfur-laden crap-coal domestically), OIL, export markets for cash (remember, the yuan is not a full participant in international financial systems; they do their external trade mostly in dollars, somewhat in Euros).
The iron and coal comes largely from Australia. Look at recent power politics being played between Australia and China over Chinese attempts to buy majority ownership in Australian mining companies; when Australia blocked those sales, the Chinese retaliated by jailing visiting Australian mining company executives as "spies". That incident didn't last long, but it shows the Chinese feeling of vulnerability and the willingness to play hardball to address that. The oil comes from all over the world. Almost all of it travels via sea. And the number one naval power in the world, by an overwhelming margin? The United States. Look at recent Chinese military efforts to develop a blue-water navy, to secure external naval ports in China-friendly host nations (Venezuela, Pakistan), and to seize the disputed Paracel and Spratley Islands, which have billions of barrels of suspected oil reserves.
Then recall the economic event which Japan used as a reason to attack the United States in 1941: the American and British decision to deny oil to Japan due to their "activities" in Japan. Everyone involved has knows this is something that can get out of hand.
Actually, you can get Silverlight for OS/X easily enough directly from Microsoft. Intel Mac, OS/X 10.4.11 or better, Safari 3+ or Firefox 3+.
I'm not surprised it's not in the App Store yet, but I suspect it will be, as will MS Office for Mac. There's money to be made, and Microsoft be wantin' some o' dat. It's a lot more likely that Microsoft products will show up in the App Store than anything from Adobe, though. That's a pissfight you need a rain slicker for, not just boots. Let's see, what was that big yellow rubberized rain coat called again...
1) We get to claim 30% of your revenue
What percentage does a brick-and-mortal distributor take for boxed software? Okay, how about th next guy in line, the retailer? Betcha it adds up to a LOT more than 30%.
2) You have to live in a box and learn "our way" to stay there
3) We can change the rules at any time
This differs from Best Buy, MacWarehouse, etc. how? They have rules too. You break 'em, you're out.
It's almost dystopian, how the hell do they expect to attract developers with these kinds of restrictions?
By... paying them? And providing a reliable storefront? And discoverability? And stripping away the hassle, the 3% Visa Tithe, the losses due to chargebacks and the use of stolen credit card info, and potential security nightmares associated with having to deal with credit cards, etc. yourself? By freeing coders and content creators to code and create, instead of dealing with retail busywork?
The App Store sounds like a hell of a deal to me. 30%? As retail overheads go, that's a pittance.
*sigh* One in every crowd. You caught me, Grissom.
No, I do not "seriously think" blah blah blah. The text-replacement was a parting shot by the penetration team. The major goal of REPLACING THE TEXT was as a deterrent and to introduce paranoia. I thought the rest was taken-as-read and that I didn't have to stoop to parentheticals and subjunctive clauses, but... Slashdot, y'know? Next time I'll use small words.
In which case they are also rolling back the security flaw.
I suspect the major goal was to send the message "you're not as secure as you think you are" and inject some paranoia (and with it, operational slowdown).