Intent: 1. Purchase a gun. Generally legal (in the US). 2. Purchase bullets. Also generally legal 3. Load the gun. Legal 4. Pick up the gun and fire it. Probably legal 5. Fire the gun at big guy charging at you. Probably legal, but hire a good lawyer and have a good story waiting. 6. You knew the guy didn't want to be bothered, was trying to avoid you, you made the purchases just before the meeting, and you brought the gun to the meeting? Hire two more good lawyers and pray you get a stupid and/or sympathetic judge and jury.
Any of the acts listed might be legal, standing alone. But put together, it looks like a construction for a deliberate criminal act.
Back in high school, the cops did a drug sting on campus. They busted the drug dealers AND the people that told them how to find the drug dealers. being part of the problem means you are part of the problem.
Comcast reports that hundreds of users have unexpectedly lost service, with thousands more dropping connections frequently and reporting massive slowdowns. Time until restoration of service is not being predicted at this time.
What was practiced there was Science as it is practiced in the real world, with grants, tenures, and livelyhoods at stake. This isn't the fairytale, schoolbook, made-for-TV-movie world that we were raised on, where everything a scientist does is only for the most altruistic of motives, with no thought to any other consideration.
Come on, half the people on slashdot can claim to be a Computer Scientist, but look at decison making around here. And if scientists didn't care about politics, the Nazis would have had the A-bomb, probably in the mid-30s. Time to wake up to reality.
Apple couldn't really test the iPhone 4 antenna because they would have done most of the testing on site,
Then maybe they could have crossed the street. Maybe got in a van and driven across town. Called a cell phone company (like ATT for example) and tried to find out the median distance between towers, or the mean connect distance to a cell site, then tested at range. You know, FIELD testing, with some minimal technical muscle behind it.
Maybe iPhone users cannot or will not install software that doesn't come from the store? I mean, I'm sure it is possible to do, but the hurdle is too big for them to seriously consider it. Whether that hurdle is technical, or more of an attitude adjustment, or just ignorance is not always obvious.
That could, and should, be two levels of product support. The Basic, "here's a working machine, good luck, we'll return it to this state if you want us to" and the Advanced, "here is a machine tuned to work a lot of apps, according to our sensibilities". Most auto manufacturers offered this two-tiered approach during the Golden Age of Detroit. The luxo makers probably still do.
It isn't two against one. At least it shouldn't be. This is two separate incidents, unrelated except the Assange was involved in both. Treating it as if the two women are related plays into the anti-Assange conspiracy theory. If they are working together, the only reason would be to bring down Assange. If they are independent (and truthful), it shows Assange has (or may have) a pattern of sexual misbehavior.
The story might be 100% bogus. But it is still up to the Jury to decide how bogus. Or whatever passes for a Jury in Sweden.
All you need to make out charges is that the accusation be plausible and have some degree of support. OK, you have two complaining witnesses that have made sworn statements. Unless you have some directly contravening evidence or statement from them, that would be enough to get you hauled into court anywhere in the US or Britain.
Now it is up the prosecutors to prove (to the Swedish standard of proof) that the accusation is true. Seems difficult to me, given it IS a fishy story, but I wasn't there.
Hey it is easily possible that the show was pitched to the wrong audience. The Stargate fans are looking for what they've always seen. They got something different and they didn't like it. Call it something else and different expectations get attached to it. Me I was never a big Stargate fan, so when something different did come along I was ready for it.
and that was a great premise. "Everybody into the lifeboat, we'll deal with the other problems later!"
That sets the stage for all kinds of good interaction and dynamics in the crew. Which I thought were playing out pretty well. the main leadership had worked up a truce in hostilities, the secondary characters had mostly worked out their personal frictions and hook ups. Then the writers had the option of playing on those notes again, or introducing new external threats. Which they did.
A bit too much recycling of soap opera style plots, but in the end a good mix of character development, external threats, and sense of unknowns. A multi-faceted adult sci-fi show, with some T&A for the fanboys. But apparently not formulaic enough.
Sanctuary is a snoozefest. Amanda Tapping is still lovely, but even she can't save a show that barely has anything to say. I mean really, if you missed three Sanctuary eps in a row, would you even notice?
What does it have going? What a silly question! They have WWE, they have Sharktopus (or is that Dinocroc?), they have Ghost Hunters AND Ghost Hunters International!
I mean, what else could a SciFi (or SyFy) fan want ??
I liked Universe, but they could have skipped Atlantis altogether.
There are only so many times you can go to the formula well and pull up a winner. And apparently the "fans" punish you if you decide to try a different formula. One where characterization and plot and growth and unpredictability actually mean something.
So, if someone creates and compiles knowledge into a new collection never before seen, then leaves it on a computer that you happen to have access to, you just automatically assume you may freely read and copy it, and that you can and should share it with anyone you happen to think of. And none of this has any negative moral implication because "You inherently can't steal knowledge." Wow.
Notice that at no point does the intent or even desire of the person that created the knowledge come into play. Only what you can accomplish with the tools you have. In the physical world that would put you squarely in the box of a thief. But somehow being "knowledge", or easily copied digital bits, makes all that irrelevant.
Just because something is easy to steal does not give you rights to take it.
Do you you own everything you see just because you can pick the locks? Does someone else own all of your possessions because they can easily take them from you? That is a pretty muddy moral world you're living in. If the only barrier to ownership is in how difficult it is to get it from the guy that has it, how is that different from Brute-force World? If the victim was willing to give it up, or deserved to be copied from because she didn't put up a good defense. Really?
Good, but wrong. Reference.com is not a classification guide, it is a dictionary.
Classification, secret, top secret, sensitive, and the others are not Only about keeping knowledge away from the general public. They are about the degree to which that knowledge can harm the National Security of the United States AND keeping that knowledge away from people that would use it to harm the United States.
The knowledge remains dangerous until something is done to counter whatever the threat is. Thus it remains classified until the threat is countered. The thief cannot smash the information and destroy it. If that had happened there wouldn't be a problem.
How could the NYT un-classify something? They don't work for the US Government, and certainly they can't make fully informed judgments on how the information can damage the National Security of the US. They might make some guesses, even good guesses, but that is far from the same thing.
Right. Think about it. If a government system was serving up classified documents to anyone that asked, it would be a major scandal. People would rightly want it shut down or disconnected. You certainly would not want classified stuff leaking out into the world, or crossing into systems it doesn't belong in.
OK, so now we have WL serving up classified documents. So what does the government do? Disconnect from the systems doing the leaking. Can't shut down WL itself, legally, but you can minimize the leakage into places the information doesn't belong.
Slashdot Mirror
Intent:
1. Purchase a gun. Generally legal (in the US).
2. Purchase bullets. Also generally legal
3. Load the gun. Legal
4. Pick up the gun and fire it. Probably legal
5. Fire the gun at big guy charging at you. Probably legal, but hire a good lawyer and have a good story waiting.
6. You knew the guy didn't want to be bothered, was trying to avoid you, you made the purchases just before the meeting, and you brought the gun to the meeting? Hire two more good lawyers and pray you get a stupid and/or sympathetic judge and jury.
Any of the acts listed might be legal, standing alone. But put together, it looks like a construction for a deliberate criminal act.
And you would be wrong. Pleas and convictions all around. Knowingly Aiding a crime is a crime in its own right.
Back in high school, the cops did a drug sting on campus. They busted the drug dealers AND the people that told them how to find the drug dealers. being part of the problem means you are part of the problem.
14 bits more. but who's counting?
Careful, their logic buffers will overheat and explode!
Comcast reports that hundreds of users have unexpectedly lost service, with thousands more dropping connections frequently and reporting massive slowdowns. Time until restoration of service is not being predicted at this time.
What was practiced there was Science as it is practiced in the real world, with grants, tenures, and livelyhoods at stake. This isn't the fairytale, schoolbook, made-for-TV-movie world that we were raised on, where everything a scientist does is only for the most altruistic of motives, with no thought to any other consideration.
Come on, half the people on slashdot can claim to be a Computer Scientist, but look at decison making around here. And if scientists didn't care about politics, the Nazis would have had the A-bomb, probably in the mid-30s. Time to wake up to reality.
Apple couldn't really test the iPhone 4 antenna because they would have done most of the testing on site,
Then maybe they could have crossed the street. Maybe got in a van and driven across town. Called a cell phone company (like ATT for example) and tried to find out the median distance between towers, or the mean connect distance to a cell site, then tested at range. You know, FIELD testing, with some minimal technical muscle behind it.
Maybe iPhone users cannot or will not install software that doesn't come from the store? I mean, I'm sure it is possible to do, but the hurdle is too big for them to seriously consider it. Whether that hurdle is technical, or more of an attitude adjustment, or just ignorance is not always obvious.
That could, and should, be two levels of product support. The Basic, "here's a working machine, good luck, we'll return it to this state if you want us to" and the Advanced, "here is a machine tuned to work a lot of apps, according to our sensibilities". Most auto manufacturers offered this two-tiered approach during the Golden Age of Detroit. The luxo makers probably still do.
As long as you don't owe your soul to them, no problem
It isn't two against one. At least it shouldn't be. This is two separate incidents, unrelated except the Assange was involved in both. Treating it as if the two women are related plays into the anti-Assange conspiracy theory. If they are working together, the only reason would be to bring down Assange. If they are independent (and truthful), it shows Assange has (or may have) a pattern of sexual misbehavior.
The story might be 100% bogus. But it is still up to the Jury to decide how bogus. Or whatever passes for a Jury in Sweden.
All you need to make out charges is that the accusation be plausible and have some degree of support. OK, you have two complaining witnesses that have made sworn statements. Unless you have some directly contravening evidence or statement from them, that would be enough to get you hauled into court anywhere in the US or Britain.
Now it is up the prosecutors to prove (to the Swedish standard of proof) that the accusation is true. Seems difficult to me, given it IS a fishy story, but I wasn't there.
Hey it is easily possible that the show was pitched to the wrong audience. The Stargate fans are looking for what they've always seen. They got something different and they didn't like it. Call it something else and different expectations get attached to it. Me I was never a big Stargate fan, so when something different did come along I was ready for it.
and that was a great premise. "Everybody into the lifeboat, we'll deal with the other problems later!"
That sets the stage for all kinds of good interaction and dynamics in the crew. Which I thought were playing out pretty well. the main leadership had worked up a truce in hostilities, the secondary characters had mostly worked out their personal frictions and hook ups. Then the writers had the option of playing on those notes again, or introducing new external threats. Which they did.
A bit too much recycling of soap opera style plots, but in the end a good mix of character development, external threats, and sense of unknowns. A multi-faceted adult sci-fi show, with some T&A for the fanboys. But apparently not formulaic enough.
Sanctuary is a snoozefest. Amanda Tapping is still lovely, but even she can't save a show that barely has anything to say. I mean really, if you missed three Sanctuary eps in a row, would you even notice?
What does it have going? What a silly question! They have WWE, they have Sharktopus (or is that Dinocroc?), they have Ghost Hunters AND Ghost Hunters International!
I mean, what else could a SciFi (or SyFy) fan want ??
I liked Universe, but they could have skipped Atlantis altogether.
There are only so many times you can go to the formula well and pull up a winner. And apparently the "fans" punish you if you decide to try a different formula. One where characterization and plot and growth and unpredictability actually mean something.
So, if someone creates and compiles knowledge into a new collection never before seen, then leaves it on a computer that you happen to have access to, you just automatically assume you may freely read and copy it, and that you can and should share it with anyone you happen to think of. And none of this has any negative moral implication because "You inherently can't steal knowledge." Wow.
Notice that at no point does the intent or even desire of the person that created the knowledge come into play. Only what you can accomplish with the tools you have. In the physical world that would put you squarely in the box of a thief. But somehow being "knowledge", or easily copied digital bits, makes all that irrelevant.
None of which changes the fact it hasn't been declassified, and thus can't be on systems not intended for classified information.
Classified is what I was discussing. Secret or confidential in the colloquial sense was not part of the discussion.
And I don't intend to get into your articles of faith at all.
Just because something is easy to steal does not give you rights to take it.
Do you you own everything you see just because you can pick the locks? Does someone else own all of your possessions because they can easily take them from you? That is a pretty muddy moral world you're living in. If the only barrier to ownership is in how difficult it is to get it from the guy that has it, how is that different from Brute-force World? If the victim was willing to give it up, or deserved to be copied from because she didn't put up a good defense. Really?
Good, but wrong. Reference.com is not a classification guide, it is a dictionary.
Classification, secret, top secret, sensitive, and the others are not Only about keeping knowledge away from the general public. They are about the degree to which that knowledge can harm the National Security of the United States AND keeping that knowledge away from people that would use it to harm the United States.
The knowledge remains dangerous until something is done to counter whatever the threat is. Thus it remains classified until the threat is countered. The thief cannot smash the information and destroy it. If that had happened there wouldn't be a problem.
How could the NYT un-classify something? They don't work for the US Government, and certainly they can't make fully informed judgments on how the information can damage the National Security of the US. They might make some guesses, even good guesses, but that is far from the same thing.
Right. Think about it. If a government system was serving up classified documents to anyone that asked, it would be a major scandal. People would rightly want it shut down or disconnected. You certainly would not want classified stuff leaking out into the world, or crossing into systems it doesn't belong in.
OK, so now we have WL serving up classified documents. So what does the government do? Disconnect from the systems doing the leaking. Can't shut down WL itself, legally, but you can minimize the leakage into places the information doesn't belong.