developers/"Software engineers"/programmers (they are just titles referring to the same skill sets - get over yourselves)
I hope you get over yourself one day because in my opinion you know far less than you think you do. There's a big difference between what I would refer to as a programmer and a software engineer. A programmer is told to write a program to do X. They write the minimum code to accomplish exactly and only X. A software engineer will look at what X is being used for in the context of the overall system. They will likely get an understanding of the current and future scope of X and write a program that provides X functionality in a manner that's supportable and adaptable to other current and potential future uses.
The reason most software sucks is because people don't know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. They think programmers are interchangeable entities that can be added and removed with impunity and end up with a bunch of rigid unsupportable code.
If the doctor doesn't ruin your life, then you don't get to ruin his day. Works for both 'concerns'.
How do you get to ruin his day? He has insurance. Know if or how many times your doctor has been accused of or sued for malpractice? Of course not. That information is secret.
trying to minimize bad outcomes is sort of the whole point to improving medical practice.
One of the best ways to do that is to make information about doctors public.
The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not. In this case, the judge is not over-stepping. The law, as written, doesn't account for other uses of a phone, possibly owing to the fact that the people who wrote it didn't have the modern phone in mind when they wrote it.
The law as written ("that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free driving and talking") is obviously intended to address "talking" on the "telephone" and doesn't address other uses in any manner. Judges can and do rule all the time on the intent of a law especially in cases where time and technology have changed the meaning of terms and phrases used in a law. Stretching this law to cover other uses of a "telephone" is an obscene case of legislating from the bench. The driver in question wan't even using a "telephone" much less talking on one. He was using a hand held mapping device which this nor any other law addressed until this judge made it so. Just because the words of a law can be stretched and twisted to cover things other than those intended by the law doesn't mean those things are or should be.
If the law says you can't wash your horse in your driveway on sundays, it may be a stupid law, but if the police find a wet horse in your driveway
By your interpretation this law would also cover washing your car in your driveway on Sunday since a horse is a means of transportation and so is your car. The guy in question wasn't using a telephone. He was using a mapping device.
The only real question is how much damage they could do to Seoul before they went down.
And this is the key statement that makes the "ignore them" strategy the epitome of stupidity. Ignore them and let them develop nuclear weapons. That's a great way minimize the amount of damage they could do. Letting countries with psychotic sociopathic leaders play with nuclear weapons is sure to turn out well. And here we go back to good old Neville waving a little piece of paper claiming to have achieved peace in his time. He allowed Hitler and his government (i.e. psychotic sociopathic leaders) play with the nuclear weapons of that time. For a full 5 years France and or England could have said "Boo" and sent Hitler running.
Instead they left him alone.
Which as history tells us turned out quite well.
In short, learn proper history please (not the pop history that doesn't match the *actual* facts).
Please note that he is referring to the history they teach in the public schools here. It's full of as many half truths and outright lies as the best propaganda turned out by what we view as 'evil' governments.
Nowadays we have movies that are essentially "flat" --- the storyline is flat, the acting is flat, even the overdone CGI animation/effects come out looking "flat"
Amen to that. Even better example, any Alfred Hitchcock movie. Any of them are much more suspenseful than any of that crap they put about these days in that genre and not a one of them had wildly expensive special effects. Just good creative original plot lines, great directing and decent acting. Rear Window is one of the most suspenseful movies I've ever scene yet has not a drop of blood and only the most mild violence with an added touch of subtle sexual tension.
Bullshit. They had a private conversation that she overheard. They weren't announcing their comments to their entire twitter following and anyone monitoring the conference hashtag. She took their picture and announced to the world that they had offended her. The overheard conversation wasn't directed at her or about her. It's none of her business.
I don't understand why so many people on Slashdot came here to crucify her.
You want to know why? Because acting like the entire would should bow to your likes and dislikes is egomaniacal and narcissistic. That's why.
Could you possible make a more hyperbolic disingenuous answer? I guess since you couldn't refute what I actually said you decided to just make stuff up and then argue against that?
So if someone offends you, you ask them to continue because seeing someone exercise their right to insult others makes you all warm and fuzzy inside?
First and foremost no one insulted her. She overheard a conversation that in no way involved her and wasn't about her in any way. They weren't talking about raping or murdering someone. It was some off color jokes. Why on earth she felt that this required reporting to the authorities I can't possible fathom. I overhear conversations every single day that I find strange and out of sorts to me. You know what I do if I don't like what I'm hearing? I usually just stop listening. Image that. Ignoring someone talking about something you find distasteful. What a novel and simple solution.
All she did was express her opinion, and you found that offensive? What's wrong with you?
She didn't just express her opinion. She made a friggin major production out of 2 very minor possibly off color comments. She publicly denounce the 2 people publishing their picture. Her actions resulted in 2 people losing their jobs. Given the hyperbole of your response to my comment I'm guessing you'll never see that though. And yes I find that offensive. Far more offensive than an off color joke or 2.
If she doesn't ever have to hear anything she might find offensive then why should anyone else in the world have to? What makes her so special? Life is so much more pleasant when you don't get your panties all in a twist (oh my god, a sexist comment shoot him immediately) every time something you might not particularly like occurs. And for all you know I wear panties.
So everything anyone does in the world that might offend me should be stopped immediately.
So the fact that I find her actions obscenely offensive means she should be banned from future conferences. Right? Right?
It's asinine that she is so friggin hypersensitive that she found such benign mundane comments that offensive. Someone that delicate shouldn't be allowed to interact in public.
The only thing that makes a difference is your judgement. If you showed bad judgement, even if you're intent was innocent, then you might be too dumb to employ.
If you're so sensitive that you find something as stupid and mundane as that intolerable offensive you lack the judgement to interact with people. Pretty much any statement could be interpreted as offensive by someone. Expecting everyone to read your mind to ensure they don't say anything that might offend you is asinine. You have no right not to be offended.
Just to pile on, when you say "both sides do it," you are implicitly refusing to deal with the actual topic at hand, which is for example "budget" or "national security," or whatever.
Pick your topic. Decisions are almost never made based on what's best for we the people. They're made based on who pays the most money. You'd have to be blinding stupid to think the copyright laws in this country are in the interest of the people. They're in the interest of the corporations that pay the most. Same for healthcare. Same for patent law. Same for gun control. Same for pick your topic.
So when you do that, you are basically throwing up your hands and saying "who can know such things?"
I have no clue how you managed to get that out of what I said. I definitively know such things. I know the current system isn't working much less working well. I know voting for one side or the other isn't going to change a damn thing. Obama hasn't done a damn thing (at least anything that matters) different than Bush before him. Minor changes that don't really change anything but allow them to spout off to the press shills thus keeping the plebeians happy. You're one of those happy plebeians. You actually think Obama's done something helpful or Bush did something helpful or voting for one or the other actually changed something.
It's fucking lazy. Very, fucking lazy. I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic. You obviously are.
Hmmm...I've got some 40 history books sitting on the shelves around here covering from the first civilizations to contemporary times left, right and middle. And those are just the ones I own. I've read many more. I actually try to get my information from more than one source though. You know read multiple views on a subject. But I'm obviously lazy.
I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic.
I keep arguing with people who are too ignorant to grasp that the critical problem almost always isn't the elements of the subject. I do this in the hopes that maybe one or 2 will actually wake up and start looking into what's really happening. If you really delve into the subject, whatever it may be, you'll find in almost all cases the government's actions are motivated by 2 things, money and taking power from the people.
"both sides are equally bad/dishonest/wrong" is the biggest political cop-out ever.
I'm not sure how you can possible call that a cop out since it's 100% correct.
it's sad that such pat vaguaries aren't instantly embarassing to the faces they so often fly out of.
I'm assuming you meant vagaries but that doesn't make much sense. Not sure why you would consider it that erratic of a notion. It's been pretty consistent for quite a while now that the US government (either party) doesn't have the interest of the people as a priority and they're largely usurping the constitution to achieve what ever priorities they do have. Perhaps vagueness? Nothing vague about it. Just get your news from someplace other than the main stream press and it's more than clear. As a voter what other options do you have?
Seriously, what would be a better way to handle this? I pirate stuff from time to time, and I would rather get a $35 dollar ticket to encourage me to stop, rather than a $5000 dollar extortion fee.
Why in hell would you consider either one of those acceptable. And it's not 35 dollar ticket. That's what you have to pay to even see the evidence against you. After 3 accusations they can redirect your internet to an 'education' page, limit the sites you can visit and/or throttle your connection speed.
The $35-for-an-appeal fee which they call a "due process" fee makes a mockery of the concept of due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty.
Even worse you have to prove you or anyone else that may have used your internet didn't download the material you're accused of downloading. How the hell do you prove you didn't download something? You don't get to question there 'evidence' as a defense other than proving the ISP gave them the wrong information. So much for defending yourself.
Don't forget that someone other than the account holder doing the downloading isn't a defense kinda like someone using your car to rob a bank and you go to jail. They don't care if it kills open access WIFI. Also sharing public domain works count if they were published after 1923.
But what will WikiLeaks or its successors leak if people honestly fear that death is the punishment for getting caught?
I think you underestimate people. At least from historical evidence people have fought oppression in the face of death or even worse punishments when caught.
From you tag line I take it you are of libertarian persuasion.
I really don't affiliate with any particular political party's philosophy. Ayn Rand had some interesting and deep social and political insights. And she earned them the hard way.
You do realize the ecuadorean government makes the crap the USA government has done look good right? Oh and Ecuador is currently running Wikileaks. And you can't prove otherwise As Assage won't let go control of wikileaks and is hiding out in a Ecuadorean Embassy.
Note I said 'organizations like Wikileaks'. If Wikileaks comes under the influence of forces that limit what they'll release there are other organizations and hopefully even more coming.
And I really don't buy your premise on Wikileaks. They release a number of different things since Assage was forced to flee to the embassy. And I don't need to prove otherwise. You can't prove a negitive. Show me some evidence of influence.
Slashdot Mirror
developers/"Software engineers"/programmers (they are just titles referring to the same skill sets - get over yourselves)
I hope you get over yourself one day because in my opinion you know far less than you think you do. There's a big difference between what I would refer to as a programmer and a software engineer. A programmer is told to write a program to do X. They write the minimum code to accomplish exactly and only X. A software engineer will look at what X is being used for in the context of the overall system. They will likely get an understanding of the current and future scope of X and write a program that provides X functionality in a manner that's supportable and adaptable to other current and potential future uses.
The reason most software sucks is because people don't know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. They think programmers are interchangeable entities that can be added and removed with impunity and end up with a bunch of rigid unsupportable code.
If the doctor doesn't ruin your life, then you don't get to ruin his day. Works for both 'concerns'.
How do you get to ruin his day? He has insurance. Know if or how many times your doctor has been accused of or sued for malpractice? Of course not. That information is secret.
trying to minimize bad outcomes is sort of the whole point to improving medical practice.
One of the best ways to do that is to make information about doctors public.
Directions don't work. Random people can't give you accurate turn-by-turn directions orally.
"Well you go down to where Billy-Bobs barn use to be." Actually had a guy tell us that once. We were laughing to hard to hear the rest.
Stand alone sat nav units usually don't let you operate them while the car is in motion.
That would be moronic. Not sure about your world but in mine almost all cars hold more than one person.
The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not. In this case, the judge is not over-stepping. The law, as written, doesn't account for other uses of a phone, possibly owing to the fact that the people who wrote it didn't have the modern phone in mind when they wrote it.
The law as written ("that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free driving and talking") is obviously intended to address "talking" on the "telephone" and doesn't address other uses in any manner. Judges can and do rule all the time on the intent of a law especially in cases where time and technology have changed the meaning of terms and phrases used in a law. Stretching this law to cover other uses of a "telephone" is an obscene case of legislating from the bench. The driver in question wan't even using a "telephone" much less talking on one. He was using a hand held mapping device which this nor any other law addressed until this judge made it so. Just because the words of a law can be stretched and twisted to cover things other than those intended by the law doesn't mean those things are or should be.
If the law says you can't wash your horse in your driveway on sundays, it may be a stupid law, but if the police find a wet horse in your driveway
By your interpretation this law would also cover washing your car in your driveway on Sunday since a horse is a means of transportation and so is your car. The guy in question wasn't using a telephone. He was using a mapping device.
The only real question is how much damage they could do to Seoul before they went down.
And this is the key statement that makes the "ignore them" strategy the epitome of stupidity. Ignore them and let them develop nuclear weapons. That's a great way minimize the amount of damage they could do. Letting countries with psychotic sociopathic leaders play with nuclear weapons is sure to turn out well. And here we go back to good old Neville waving a little piece of paper claiming to have achieved peace in his time. He allowed Hitler and his government (i.e. psychotic sociopathic leaders) play with the nuclear weapons of that time. For a full 5 years France and or England could have said "Boo" and sent Hitler running.
Instead they left him alone.
Which as history tells us turned out quite well.
In short, learn proper history please (not the pop history that doesn't match the *actual* facts).
Please note that he is referring to the history they teach in the public schools here. It's full of as many half truths and outright lies as the best propaganda turned out by what we view as 'evil' governments.
Nowadays we have movies that are essentially "flat" --- the storyline is flat, the acting is flat, even the overdone CGI animation/effects come out looking "flat"
Amen to that. Even better example, any Alfred Hitchcock movie. Any of them are much more suspenseful than any of that crap they put about these days in that genre and not a one of them had wildly expensive special effects. Just good creative original plot lines, great directing and decent acting. Rear Window is one of the most suspenseful movies I've ever scene yet has not a drop of blood and only the most mild violence with an added touch of subtle sexual tension.
Aside from those two, there's no good reason anyone should avoid PyCon, and we all know it.
Except that saying anything that might offend anyone there may get you fired. Nope. That's no reason to avoid it.
They publicly said something she took offense to.
Bullshit. They had a private conversation that she overheard. They weren't announcing their comments to their entire twitter following and anyone monitoring the conference hashtag. She took their picture and announced to the world that they had offended her. The overheard conversation wasn't directed at her or about her. It's none of her business.
I don't understand why so many people on Slashdot came here to crucify her.
You want to know why? Because acting like the entire would should bow to your likes and dislikes is egomaniacal and narcissistic. That's why.
Could you possible make a more hyperbolic disingenuous answer? I guess since you couldn't refute what I actually said you decided to just make stuff up and then argue against that?
So if someone offends you, you ask them to continue because seeing someone exercise their right to insult others makes you all warm and fuzzy inside?
First and foremost no one insulted her. She overheard a conversation that in no way involved her and wasn't about her in any way. They weren't talking about raping or murdering someone. It was some off color jokes. Why on earth she felt that this required reporting to the authorities I can't possible fathom. I overhear conversations every single day that I find strange and out of sorts to me. You know what I do if I don't like what I'm hearing? I usually just stop listening. Image that. Ignoring someone talking about something you find distasteful. What a novel and simple solution.
All she did was express her opinion, and you found that offensive? What's wrong with you?
She didn't just express her opinion. She made a friggin major production out of 2 very minor possibly off color comments. She publicly denounce the 2 people publishing their picture. Her actions resulted in 2 people losing their jobs. Given the hyperbole of your response to my comment I'm guessing you'll never see that though. And yes I find that offensive. Far more offensive than an off color joke or 2.
If she doesn't ever have to hear anything she might find offensive then why should anyone else in the world have to? What makes her so special? Life is so much more pleasant when you don't get your panties all in a twist (oh my god, a sexist comment shoot him immediately) every time something you might not particularly like occurs. And for all you know I wear panties.
I will believe you the first time I see a politician refuse to vacate his seat after losing an election.
Which puppet is in the seat isn't relevant as long as the strings are attached.
the behavior she found offensive stopped.
So everything anyone does in the world that might offend me should be stopped immediately.
So the fact that I find her actions obscenely offensive means she should be banned from future conferences. Right? Right?
It's asinine that she is so friggin hypersensitive that she found such benign mundane comments that offensive. Someone that delicate shouldn't be allowed to interact in public.
The only thing that makes a difference is your judgement. If you showed bad judgement, even if you're intent was innocent, then you might be too dumb to employ.
If you're so sensitive that you find something as stupid and mundane as that intolerable offensive you lack the judgement to interact with people. Pretty much any statement could be interpreted as offensive by someone. Expecting everyone to read your mind to ensure they don't say anything that might offend you is asinine. You have no right not to be offended.
you can in fact violate the laws of a country you have never set foot in. Many countries have such laws, not just the US.
Yeah. About that, Kim Dotcom would like a word with you.
The question is how long before EA has him arrested for violating the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA.
Just to pile on, when you say "both sides do it," you are implicitly refusing to deal with the actual topic at hand, which is for example "budget" or "national security," or whatever.
Pick your topic. Decisions are almost never made based on what's best for we the people. They're made based on who pays the most money. You'd have to be blinding stupid to think the copyright laws in this country are in the interest of the people. They're in the interest of the corporations that pay the most. Same for healthcare. Same for patent law. Same for gun control. Same for pick your topic.
So when you do that, you are basically throwing up your hands and saying "who can know such things?"
I have no clue how you managed to get that out of what I said. I definitively know such things. I know the current system isn't working much less working well. I know voting for one side or the other isn't going to change a damn thing. Obama hasn't done a damn thing (at least anything that matters) different than Bush before him. Minor changes that don't really change anything but allow them to spout off to the press shills thus keeping the plebeians happy. You're one of those happy plebeians. You actually think Obama's done something helpful or Bush did something helpful or voting for one or the other actually changed something.
It's fucking lazy. Very, fucking lazy. I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic. You obviously are.
Hmmm...I've got some 40 history books sitting on the shelves around here covering from the first civilizations to contemporary times left, right and middle. And those are just the ones I own. I've read many more. I actually try to get my information from more than one source though. You know read multiple views on a subject. But I'm obviously lazy.
I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic.
I keep arguing with people who are too ignorant to grasp that the critical problem almost always isn't the elements of the subject. I do this in the hopes that maybe one or 2 will actually wake up and start looking into what's really happening. If you really delve into the subject, whatever it may be, you'll find in almost all cases the government's actions are motivated by 2 things, money and taking power from the people.
"both sides are equally bad/dishonest/wrong" is the biggest political cop-out ever.
I'm not sure how you can possible call that a cop out since it's 100% correct.
it's sad that such pat vaguaries aren't instantly embarassing to the faces they so often fly out of.
I'm assuming you meant vagaries but that doesn't make much sense. Not sure why you would consider it that erratic of a notion. It's been pretty consistent for quite a while now that the US government (either party) doesn't have the interest of the people as a priority and they're largely usurping the constitution to achieve what ever priorities they do have. Perhaps vagueness? Nothing vague about it. Just get your news from someplace other than the main stream press and it's more than clear. As a voter what other options do you have?
The Republicans are wrong 99% of the time. The Democrats are wrong 95% of the time.
Except the difference isn't statistically significant. In other words who is wrong more is lost in the noise of wrongness.
Seriously, what would be a better way to handle this? I pirate stuff from time to time, and I would rather get a $35 dollar ticket to encourage me to stop, rather than a $5000 dollar extortion fee.
Why in hell would you consider either one of those acceptable. And it's not 35 dollar ticket. That's what you have to pay to even see the evidence against you. After 3 accusations they can redirect your internet to an 'education' page, limit the sites you can visit and/or throttle your connection speed.
The $35-for-an-appeal fee which they call a "due process" fee makes a mockery of the concept of due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty.
Even worse you have to prove you or anyone else that may have used your internet didn't download the material you're accused of downloading. How the hell do you prove you didn't download something? You don't get to question there 'evidence' as a defense other than proving the ISP gave them the wrong information. So much for defending yourself.
Don't forget that someone other than the account holder doing the downloading isn't a defense kinda like someone using your car to rob a bank and you go to jail. They don't care if it kills open access WIFI. Also sharing public domain works count if they were published after 1923.
You have terrible taste.
It's funny. Almost everyone I've encountered that bags on Ayn Rand completely misinterpreted the point she was trying to make.
That will remain true until that are a couple of orders of magnitude more exit points
So what we need is some freedom loving nations to support and/or sponsor TOR exit points. Oh the irony drips deep...
But what will WikiLeaks or its successors leak if people honestly fear that death is the punishment for getting caught?
I think you underestimate people. At least from historical evidence people have fought oppression in the face of death or even worse punishments when caught.
From you tag line I take it you are of libertarian persuasion.
I really don't affiliate with any particular political party's philosophy. Ayn Rand had some interesting and deep social and political insights. And she earned them the hard way.
You do realize the ecuadorean government makes the crap the USA government has done look good right? Oh and Ecuador is currently running Wikileaks. And you can't prove otherwise As Assage won't let go control of wikileaks and is hiding out in a Ecuadorean Embassy.
Note I said 'organizations like Wikileaks'. If Wikileaks comes under the influence of forces that limit what they'll release there are other organizations and hopefully even more coming.
And I really don't buy your premise on Wikileaks. They release a number of different things since Assage was forced to flee to the embassy. And I don't need to prove otherwise. You can't prove a negitive. Show me some evidence of influence.