"Oh, and don't say anything about the door to them, since when the bank gets robbed, you will make a convenient scapegoat"
I'm sorry but that's just really really stupid even by slashdot standards. Oh yeah, it takes a bank robber to notice a door not closing, and POINT IT OUT?!!
"If you don't, you'll be either used as a scapegoat or simply discredited by accusing you of some crime publicly to prevent anyone from taking your accusations seriously"
Are we still talking about pointing out a door not closing?? Dude, weed's great and everything, but someone with your level of paranoia shouldn't be smoking it.
...and what if you're in the bank, and you notice that their "authorised personnel only" door with a secure code lock is catching on the carpet when staff come through it, and not clicking shut?
Point is, you don't always have to be looking to see something.
No - to create depth you need to give the left and right eyes slightly different views... all adding lenses would do is blur the image, which you can easily do with software (by blending pixel colours) or drinking heavily*
* although drinking can give you two seperate images, it's the act of combining them that gives you the 3D image, which in this case, would still be a flat screen.
Actually I would have thought "not lighting up the spacestation" would be a good start:-p
"While the stars in the backround appear in different places from night to night, due to the movement of the Earth around the Sun?"
Hmm... so, take one picture, show it in blue, then few months later take another and overlap it but in red, get those old 3D glasses out and woot, 3D view of the universe!! That would be cool...
"MP3's" refers to a possession of the MP3 or "MP3 is", and "MP3s" refers to plural MP3 files
Does the english language actually dictate how to correctly pluralise acronyms (or in the case of mp3, whatever you'd call it), especially those that end in a number?
As for UFO - surely the plural (ie, Unidentified Flying Objects - correctly with no apostrophe) actually has the same acronym; UFO.
I don't know if there is or can be a 100% correct when we're talking about language/communication shortcuts, and while you can apply standard practices applied when using real words to these arbitrary shortcuts, surely the use of shortcuts is already a deviation from the core language, so can one really comment on how it "should" be done?
Just some thoughts, my opinion is not really set yet, opposing ideas welcome (as long as intelligent or educated).
Re:Was it necessary to use the Lord's name in vane
on
Everyone Hates UMD
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Well you should have picked another word to call your superhero other than "god", people have been using that word in explitives for *years*, we're not gonna change the words we say just because you have adopted one of them to refer to a mythical being with the "stop picking on me" mentality of a 4 year old.
It's nothing to do with metric, and it's nothing to do with "a nanosecond is a billionth...", you're digging your hole deeper dude, you're trying to point out stupidity of others when you're the only one here who's made an error.
I guess if you're making stuff that you believe is -likely- to be used to break the law, you have a certain level of responsibility to try and make sure it doesn't. For example, I've refused on an occasion to write software for someone because of how it was going to be used (in this case, it was for managing unsolicited mailouts aka spam). It would keep track of who recieved what and when, so as to not send them too much, and use embedded images to verify who was reading them (this was a few years back) - so I had started putting thought into it. But, I couldn't continue, because of how much I know spam pisses people off (even more now), even tho I did really need the cash.
I know this isn't going to be the same with off-the-shelf products, you can't know enough about who's buying and what they're using for, but there are often/some/ things you can do to make it more difficult to use something for illegal purposes. I think if you can be shown to have made an effort, that is what will count. If it can be shown that there were things you could have done, that you didn't, with knowledge that that means it could be used for illegal purposes, that's when you'll start hitting problems.
Idealy, yes, how it's worded? Maybe not. How it will be carried out? Let's hope so.
I agree with this ideology, but under those grounds, whilst it should be legal for someone to own a gun, it should be kept securely locked up, only to be taken out for practice (no point having something you can't use) and when you need to turn on your government.
If people were only allowed to get their guns out when they needed to remove or bring into line the government, I think the government would behave better:-p "let's not give them an excuse"
Why should you only be allowed to protect your physical body? I work really hard (except right now:-p) and have relatively little "stuff" to show for it (I'm a generous guy), and if someone tries to take that from me, they are taking the portion of my life I gave to generate the money to be able to own it.
Why do we need people on this planet who are willing to do that, when there are so many who don't?
But yes, I am against killing people under those circumstances regardless, at/least/ until a trial or something - seems like too easy way to get rid of someone - arrange for it to look like they were breaking in, which is why everyone should have to right to say "it wasn't me" (or variants of), because sometimes - it really wasn't.
So yes I am against the killing on technical grounds, but I can't be on the moral grounds you give.
What we really need to think about, is do we really need to keep everyone alive? We have enough people, and yeah we gotta be a lil careful of who we get rid of (just pissing someone off isn't enough), but I don't see anything wrong with increasing the standards for being allowed to live. As the standard of decent human beings alive on the planet goes up, we won't even need to keep killing off those at the bottom, because the bottom will move up. Damn our compassionate nature, it's holding us back.
"Was killing him for taking your wallet really justified?"
Sure; we don't have a shortage of people, and if we kill all the people who steal your wallet, then all that will be left are people who won't. Sounds like a better world to live in.
I am against it tho, for other reasons. Here in the UK, most people that break into your house won't be carrying a gun. If we all start owning guns to protect our properties, then the people doing the breaking in will start protecting themselves with guns too, which negatively affects the risks of all people who have a home that may be broken in to.
No, he was right with asynchronous - the ability to fire your missiles in a non-blocking manor, so you can carry on doing stuff while it completes it's job. And of cause the latest technology is to give your missiles landscape details and the path to take in XML format, which is known as AWAX. Asynchronous wars run a lot more smoothly and seamlessly, and are generally a lot less painful for everyone.
It doesn't say "for anything bad" as your interpretation would have people believe, believed that it is likely to be used for the things covered in the article.
"So does that mean that any work I do would violate this law"
No it's not, it's saying you can't escape justice by saying "hey I only supplied the software, I didn't actually do the illegal thing" - if you know it was going to be used in a certain way, and you still supplied it, you're an accessory... which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's called responsibility.
Don't s'pose you'd like to expand a little on that for mine and other slashdotters purposes? Just a little education, nothin too deep or time consuming for ya...
Nah, banning perl is more like banning the metal that can be used to make guns.
I think the question will be how the law gets used. There are often laws which give powers that can so easily be abused, but then the laws are rarely exercised - it's better to have a power and not need it, than not have a power and find you need it. How many people get away with things because of "loopholes" in the law? So they're closing loopholes.
I'm not saying this is the case here, we'll have to see how it gets used before we can make any real judgement.
But really, perl's so not gonna be banned, that was an extreme example to illustrate a point.
To be fair, it doesn't really matter whether the government do or not. On the whole, are police can be pretty good, and use good judgement about what's worth and what's not worth enforcing. I hate to go back to the cannabis thing after just using it for a joke, but it was the police who lead the way in the change of law, for example I think it was in the Manchester area where police announced they were gonna stop going after and prosecuting those in posession, and redirect the resources elsewhere... and there's no point having a law that your own police won't enforce. I'm hoping we will see this more often, then even when part of the country fails us, enough people/do/ in fact see sense, that the failing part doesn't really matter.
Yes, I did say *hoping*. It's not always going to occur, but the fact that it every now and then does, gives me a little faith:-/
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh, and don't say anything about the door to them, since when the bank gets robbed, you will make a convenient scapegoat"
I'm sorry but that's just really really stupid even by slashdot standards. Oh yeah, it takes a bank robber to notice a door not closing, and POINT IT OUT?!!
"If you don't, you'll be either used as a scapegoat or simply discredited by accusing you of some crime publicly to prevent anyone from taking your accusations seriously"
Are we still talking about pointing out a door not closing?? Dude, weed's great and everything, but someone with your level of paranoia shouldn't be smoking it.
...and what if you're in the bank, and you notice that their "authorised personnel only" door with a secure code lock is catching on the carpet when staff come through it, and not clicking shut?
Point is, you don't always have to be looking to see something.
No - to create depth you need to give the left and right eyes slightly different views... all adding lenses would do is blur the image, which you can easily do with software (by blending pixel colours) or drinking heavily*
* although drinking can give you two seperate images, it's the act of combining them that gives you the 3D image, which in this case, would still be a flat screen.
What would LCD monitors use it for? It's you that focuses your eyes on them, not them that need to focus on you.
Actually I would have thought "not lighting up the spacestation" would be a good start :-p
"While the stars in the backround appear in different places from night to night, due to the movement of the Earth around the Sun?"
Hmm... so, take one picture, show it in blue, then few months later take another and overlap it but in red, get those old 3D glasses out and woot, 3D view of the universe!! That would be cool...
"They are really counting on Moore's law to continue up to the point they go online"
;-)
Or that Google will step in and do the storage/search functions for them, like only Google can
"MP3's" refers to a possession of the MP3 or "MP3 is", and "MP3s" refers to plural MP3 files
Does the english language actually dictate how to correctly pluralise acronyms (or in the case of mp3, whatever you'd call it), especially those that end in a number?
As for UFO - surely the plural (ie, Unidentified Flying Objects - correctly with no apostrophe) actually has the same acronym; UFO.
I don't know if there is or can be a 100% correct when we're talking about language/communication shortcuts, and while you can apply standard practices applied when using real words to these arbitrary shortcuts, surely the use of shortcuts is already a deviation from the core language, so can one really comment on how it "should" be done?
Just some thoughts, my opinion is not really set yet, opposing ideas welcome (as long as intelligent or educated).
Well you should have picked another word to call your superhero other than "god", people have been using that word in explitives for *years*, we're not gonna change the words we say just because you have adopted one of them to refer to a mythical being with the "stop picking on me" mentality of a 4 year old.
It's nothing to do with metric, and it's nothing to do with "a nanosecond is a billionth ...", you're digging your hole deeper dude, you're trying to point out stupidity of others when you're the only one here who's made an error.
I guess if you're making stuff that you believe is -likely- to be used to break the law, you have a certain level of responsibility to try and make sure it doesn't. For example, I've refused on an occasion to write software for someone because of how it was going to be used (in this case, it was for managing unsolicited mailouts aka spam). It would keep track of who recieved what and when, so as to not send them too much, and use embedded images to verify who was reading them (this was a few years back) - so I had started putting thought into it. But, I couldn't continue, because of how much I know spam pisses people off (even more now), even tho I did really need the cash.
/some/ things you can do to make it more difficult to use something for illegal purposes. I think if you can be shown to have made an effort, that is what will count. If it can be shown that there were things you could have done, that you didn't, with knowledge that that means it could be used for illegal purposes, that's when you'll start hitting problems.
I know this isn't going to be the same with off-the-shelf products, you can't know enough about who's buying and what they're using for, but there are often
Idealy, yes, how it's worded? Maybe not. How it will be carried out? Let's hope so.
I agree with this ideology, but under those grounds, whilst it should be legal for someone to own a gun, it should be kept securely locked up, only to be taken out for practice (no point having something you can't use) and when you need to turn on your government.
:-p "let's not give them an excuse"
If people were only allowed to get their guns out when they needed to remove or bring into line the government, I think the government would behave better
Why should you only be allowed to protect your physical body? I work really hard (except right now :-p) and have relatively little "stuff" to show for it (I'm a generous guy), and if someone tries to take that from me, they are taking the portion of my life I gave to generate the money to be able to own it.
/least/ until a trial or something - seems like too easy way to get rid of someone - arrange for it to look like they were breaking in, which is why everyone should have to right to say "it wasn't me" (or variants of), because sometimes - it really wasn't.
Why do we need people on this planet who are willing to do that, when there are so many who don't?
But yes, I am against killing people under those circumstances regardless, at
So yes I am against the killing on technical grounds, but I can't be on the moral grounds you give.
What we really need to think about, is do we really need to keep everyone alive? We have enough people, and yeah we gotta be a lil careful of who we get rid of (just pissing someone off isn't enough), but I don't see anything wrong with increasing the standards for being allowed to live. As the standard of decent human beings alive on the planet goes up, we won't even need to keep killing off those at the bottom, because the bottom will move up. Damn our compassionate nature, it's holding us back.
"Was killing him for taking your wallet really justified?"
Sure; we don't have a shortage of people, and if we kill all the people who steal your wallet, then all that will be left are people who won't. Sounds like a better world to live in.
I am against it tho, for other reasons. Here in the UK, most people that break into your house won't be carrying a gun. If we all start owning guns to protect our properties, then the people doing the breaking in will start protecting themselves with guns too, which negatively affects the risks of all people who have a home that may be broken in to.
It's all about the bigger picture.
No, he was right with asynchronous - the ability to fire your missiles in a non-blocking manor, so you can carry on doing stuff while it completes it's job. And of cause the latest technology is to give your missiles landscape details and the path to take in XML format, which is known as AWAX. Asynchronous wars run a lot more smoothly and seamlessly, and are generally a lot less painful for everyone.
"Bribery in India is the normal course of events"
Wow, they're even free to do that?!!
"Hey you'd never have been able to steal my car if nobody went and told you how to drive one"
/haven't/ been told how to drive them. Yurp, we always get our cars back... in lotsa pieces.
Round here, the people who steal cars
That would be slashdot filter tho right?
(genuinly asking)
And I keep seeing all around the place, god damn all the bits are becoming god damn lefties more and more!
It doesn't matter, you can still breath/swallow food/drink through the hole in the 0.
"(b) believing that it is likely to be so used"
It doesn't say "for anything bad" as your interpretation would have people believe, believed that it is likely to be used for the things covered in the article.
"So does that mean that any work I do would violate this law"
So no, it wouldn't.
No it's not, it's saying you can't escape justice by saying "hey I only supplied the software, I didn't actually do the illegal thing" - if you know it was going to be used in a certain way, and you still supplied it, you're an accessory... which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's called responsibility.
"so why would pearl scripts be?"
:-p
perl... (sorry)
Don't s'pose you'd like to expand a little on that for mine and other slashdotters purposes? Just a little education, nothin too deep or time consuming for ya...
Nah, banning perl is more like banning the metal that can be used to make guns.
I think the question will be how the law gets used. There are often laws which give powers that can so easily be abused, but then the laws are rarely exercised - it's better to have a power and not need it, than not have a power and find you need it. How many people get away with things because of "loopholes" in the law? So they're closing loopholes.
I'm not saying this is the case here, we'll have to see how it gets used before we can make any real judgement.
But really, perl's so not gonna be banned, that was an extreme example to illustrate a point.
To be fair, it doesn't really matter whether the government do or not. On the whole, are police can be pretty good, and use good judgement about what's worth and what's not worth enforcing. I hate to go back to the cannabis thing after just using it for a joke, but it was the police who lead the way in the change of law, for example I think it was in the Manchester area where police announced they were gonna stop going after and prosecuting those in posession, and redirect the resources elsewhere... and there's no point having a law that your own police won't enforce. I'm hoping we will see this more often, then even when part of the country fails us, enough people /do/ in fact see sense, that the failing part doesn't really matter.
:-/
:-p)
Yes, I did say *hoping*. It's not always going to occur, but the fact that it every now and then does, gives me a little faith
(please don't ruin it for me