Everywhere. Just go dumpster diving. Mind you the hardware can be quite dated, though sometimes not.
If you're willing to put in the man hours (which can be significant), I've had friends build relatively giant clusters of averagely old hardware, by scrounging through others off casts.
In fact, this happens so much, that an old friend of mine started a non-profit, where they would recycle free computers (pull them apart, sort the good bits from the bad bits), then give them on to needy people for free.
The company I worked for recently cleared 3 pallets of this stuff, because NOBODY would take them from us, so we even ended up paying someone to take them and recycle them.
Basically, if you're willing to downgrade to a single core, and 2-4 generation old hardware, then you can EASILY get a free computer, if you're willing to put the effort in. Most aren't willing to put this effort in.
With a repeater THAT regularly, I'd get better speeds with ADSL, with 1km repeaters. Though the ADSL repeaters would need to be powered, where as these are self powered.
LOL Whitney Houston you idiot! Put down the crack pipe, and pick up a magazine once in a while! You know, those things that teach us things? Like who Lindsey is going out with? Remember?
First, law, as a concept, is morally neutral, but the rule of law where everyone is equal under the law, is unambiguously a good thing.
This is a much harder conversation, as you'd have to get into the idea of what is and what isn't moral. It is perfectly reasonable that some definition of morality, could hold the concept of law as morally bad. It's too loosely defined to state. The rule of law where everyone is equal, is a similarly ambiguous topic. This is not only plagued with the previous questions problems, but also the problems of putting it into practice. I've got a feeling you haven't studied any of these topics, else you would have studied the philosophy and ambiguity behind it. For the simplest possible question... What is equal? How do we know they are equal? Do we let them be equal? Or do we enforce equality? What consequences do these actions have?
For every policy, even one as seemingly good as "everyone is equal under the law", there are ambiguities, and always instances where it is not a good thing, which also brings us back to the definition of moral (and hence I assume good).
You claim that "IF" the law makes private interconnecting networks between two people without prior legal authorization, we will not be able to form a second Internet. What a huge If! Do you seriously think this will happen? Who would support such a law, and who would it benefit?
Umb... have you read any law? I'm studying a bit at the moment, and having to read quite a lot of it, and every piece of it is written in very ambiguous terms, such that you often don't know whether or not it applies, until trial.
In this case, the GP is saying that any laws if passed, likely wouldn't say "The internet" or make any other specific reference to protocols. It would likely talk about networks in an extremely general terms, such as 'two entities communicating'. This is why current broadcasting laws, can often be applied to the internet. Regardless of the era they were written in.
The Australian Government says it already has the right to impose regulating the internet, in the same way broadcasting, and video stores are regulated, and impose the cost of implementing this regulation on the suppliers (ISP's). This is why every now and then you hear about the Australian Government attempting to regulate the internet, because they don't need to get through new laws, they just use the old laws, because they were written with such a wide and ambiguous scope.
As such, the GP is right, in that any laws written to cover "the internet" would almost certainly similarly cover any "new" internet which pops up in its place. As such, any company/citizen would either immediately have to comply, or be in violation of the law. Given companies couldn't do it without significant risk, immediately makes any "new" internet a no-go proposition.
Where the GP might be wrong, is in them requiring prior legal authorization. However, there is a chance, similar to broadcasting licenses, or even drivers licenses, that they could be required to completely regulate who uses it. If not at the customer level, it would surely be implemented at the ISP level. This is identical to most broadcasting regulation.
I'm sick of these sorts of comments
on
PS3 Root Key Found
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I'm sick of these sorts of comments. This is Slashdot people, news for nerds. Don't make these kinds of comments!
We will not know whether or not lawyers are full of hot air enough to reduce terminal velocity to a survivable speed, until we have taken a significantly large random sample, and dropped them from planes.
I suggest we take some aspiring lawyers, and use them as our control, as I couldn't bear the thought of accidentally killing someone who isn't a lawyer.
The question then becomes, was that interest reflective of the true risk at that time. If not, then while it wasn't "free" it was "cheap", and we all like cheap capital. Also, depending on inflation (or was it deflation) over the period, we might have effectively lost.
* Disclaimer: While I do this analysis, I haven't done much on this particular area. Hence the open questions. Perhaps someone who has the time could fill in the details.
I guarantee your money will end up there. Though in all likelihood, only a very small proportion, unless you're managing it yourself, and want to invest more.
It's hard to say whether these people are getting "fleeced" or not, as we scarcely, if ever, know the true value of something.
I would be flagged every single time. Though earlier in life I cheated (and was good at it, got 100% on some exams, thanks to weak lecturer passwords), these days I don't, because I really want to learn, and not just get a piece of paper. Though I sometimes wonder if a hybrid approach could be better, since I do want the extreme grades, since they sometimes count.
However, I digress. I'm ADD and Bipolar. While most people think this means "stupid" and can appear stupid, it's isn't necessarily. Basically, some things I get hyper focused and excited on, to the extreme point of spending days awake, working on the problem, sometimes forgetting to eat/drink/etc. On a softer scale, I have trouble retaining attention for "easy" problems, and have less trouble retaining attention for "hard" problems. Because of this, when doing tests, quizzes and exams, I often fuck up the easy ones, and do extremely well on the hard ones.
Based on their stated idea, I'd be flagged as cheating. This would happen in every exam. I wonder how much a university (with a strict no-cheating policy (like they all have)) would tolerate a student continually coming up flagged as cheating, regardless of their ability to prove it. If I get reprimanded for cheating, in my university, then I'm gone for a minimum of 3 years, and other universities in the area, might be warned of me (or at least that's the threat).
That would fucking destroy me. I'm already devastated by my results, as they're always 75%+, but they almost never reflect my competency in the subject. Some subjects it works in my favour, but mostly it works against me.
Side note: In some of my earlier statistics courses, we were privy to some analysis done by the statistics lecturers on various courses, and what variables explain the variation seen in students scores. Consistently in each course it was found that quizzes, attendance, having read the textbook, assignments, and many other variables, were all lousy explanatory variables for the final exam result, and as such the greater the weight of the final exam, the more likely your overall result wouldn't reflect you (working under the axiom that the other material/variables, better explained your competency).
This is quite interesting, at the very least.
* I find it impossible to remain consistent between the usage of the words subject and course, but they both mean the same thing.
LOL Of course not, there's no simulator big enough for that!
But joking aside, I've been keeping up on this for a fair while, and amongst the more credible insiders, a lot of information has been released...
Steve Jobs is designing a new kind of Apple training facility, initially for a few people who work for Apple, but eventually it will be opened to certain segments of the public.
It's supposed to be revolutionary. Someone said it's the final solution to all our training problems. The original idea was developed by a German doctor, who specialized in a certain type of brain training, like Dr Kawashima.
The test facilities were developed in Poland due to their tax incentives, and due to the advantageous location. Though they are a lot smaller, they provide a good idea of what's to come.
Apple apparently has a severe ADD problem in their company, and its known to afflict many programmers. This results in many of their programmers being unable to concentrate, which is a HUGE productivity loss for them.
While certain concentration drugs do help for a limited time, Apple really needed a more effective final solution, which they can use to cleanse these problems. So before any higher training happens, the first stage will be concentration training.
Apparently the Jewish community is afflicted with this disproportionately when compared to the more Nordic or Indo-European races. So I believe they'll be helping them first.
Either way, I'm excited! We're not sure what it's going to be called, but I'm thinking Camp Concentration, or maybe iConcentration? Who knows, either way it's really exciting! For the opening, Apple is apparently renting a pile of trains to cart the first lucky Jews to the facility.
Apple fanboi's that don't get picked, will be so jealous!
Oh, though Miss A sounds quite suspicious, her charges at least warrant further investigation (and I believe are the primary ones the prosecution are looking into).
However, we can see that she does have an axe to grind, continued relatively as friends, and later was looking to make money off of it. Not to mention the rest of it, it all decreases the seriousness of her claim, and from the articles so far, I don't believe there's any evidence beyond their words, which are in opposition to each other.
So you're still left at the same conclusion.
Though, I just realized I err on the side of false negatives (beta), and not on false positives (alpha). I would rather a system be setup such that the likelihood of an incorrect verdict, is biased towards keeping people out of jail, than it is putting people in jail. Something other people might not agree on.
That's a good article. Though she has 2 conflicting statements.
She recognizes that this is far beyond the usual treatment and that it is definitely politically motivated. She also recognizes how much the media has tainted peoples views against the girls. However she then goes on to say that a fair trial should be pursued. Do you believe that a fair trial could ever be held now?
Additionally, given the time has lapsed, and that relative to more obvious cases of rape, this one seems particularly less like rape, such that there is no evidence (from what I've been reading, including her articles), that any such force took place, how are we supposed to prosecute when it's merely he said, she said? Essentially, we wouldn't be having a trial on what happened, but a trial on how the jurors perceive the character of the people in question. Something that is already tipped against men.
I just read the comments by people on her post, and they fall to the same problems as the people on the opposite side, they put words in their mouths, and infer that something (which has not been stated) happened, which would define this as clearly rape.
Lastly, from the Guardian...
Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".
Now, neither Miss A nor Miss W say that they said no. While Miss A's statement suggests that she did something which should have been inferred as a no, Miss W outright says that she consented. Regardless of any half asleep state, however given she says she was "half asleep", the "surprise sex" part comes in with Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Swedish laws in question, as she is likely saying she was improperly exploited due to this state. Where as the first one is relying on these other actions, and the condom breaking, to say that while she may have implicitly consented to sex, she didn't consent to unprotected sex, though he contests that he knew it was broken.
I just re-read the charges, and they are so light, that I could not be certain that in the usual course of events that I would not also violate the letter of these laws. It would reduce having sex to filming it, and ensuring that a contract is drawn up beforehand which outlined what can and can't be done.
All of this personally comes off as the least sympathe
A monopoly has all the problems of a natural monopoly with no threat of entry.
A monopoly is a government created monopoly, a natural monopoly is a business in an industry which benefits from extreme economies of scale.
You could go for a regulated oligopoly, though they usually aren't fun either. You can split the businesses, and create all sorts of systems, but none is particularly good, because of the enormous investment required, the overwhelming amount of passionate and motivated stakeholders, and the extreme economies of scale.
If you pretend that one system will have none of the faults of the other, you're wrong, because they aren't inherent in the system, but the market/industry/customers as a whole.
For every bad free market problem (laissez-faire), you can point to an equally bad regulatory problem. Also, don't forget that all "free market" solutions provided so far, have been anything BUT free market solutions. In fact, if you read the VERY article you linked others to most of the discussion is on the regulation that led to this crisis, and only a small fragment of it is on market manipulation. Though the market manipulation was significant, and most visible aspect of the crisis. I recall in the "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room" documentary, that one of the scandalous things they did, was have certain analysts go over the immensely large documentation on regulations on this new "free market" system, and look for trading opportunities. Does that sound like deregulation to the level, that it could be used as evidence against free markets?
I prefer to err on the side of the entrepreneurship, where as you prefer to err on the side of an omnipotent ruler.
And if you believe that, just like the GP, then you're wrong. Very wrong. Not to mention...
"fucking encode whatever paradox they're trying to create in a object hierarchy, and be done with it"
This is a retarded statement. Whether the paradox is represented as a symbol based language (mathematics) or spoken language (philosophy), if they both maintain the same analytical rigor, it makes no difference. The same results can be achieve either way, the language is superfluous, the only difference being the persons/minds ability in using the language for that analysis. In fact, if the symbol based language obscures insight from all but those with an extreme competence in the subject, then it's not necessarily a good language for this discussion. You'll probably agree, unless you're one of those Lojban fuckers!
If you want to read this in a fun, easy to read, well written book, then get Gödel, Escher, Bach. I've only just started reading it, and don't have a background in math (I'm almost retarded with it), but do have a background in programming, and it very quickly explained these complex ideas. Brilliant book. His idea (Godel's and the application Hofstadter comes up with) is so simple, yet so complex, and has application in almost everything.
The economy should not be designed to enforce what you think is an fair or unfair wage, but instead to allow you to receive and pay what you can negotiate for.
Perhaps these H1B's are smarter than your wife, and in greater need of a job.
Given the choice is between destroying the lives of these H1B's and you getting a bigger salary, I'm going to err on the side of the H1B's. Given they are accepting less, I all but guarantee they're coming from far worse situations than you are.
Re:What about tags in Assange's arrest records?
on
Cablegate, the Game
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You are correct, there is no script or formula which a victim follows. However, given there is no significant evidence to the contrary, we can not be expected to take someones word for it, given they essentially looked like anyone else would.
If you do not agree with this, then you're essentially opening up anyone to put anyone else in jail for rape, as you're saying we require no substantiative proof, other than 'a participant said so a week later'.
"no means no" is totally irrelevant here, and is just a strawman argument. The question is whether its reasonable to take only one persons word, later on, in the face of other evidence, as evidence with which to convict a man, and destroy his life.
I don't think it is.
I've been following this reasonably closely, and I don't believe there has been ANY other substantiative evidence, has there?
I have been loving these articles, as it routes out the companies that obviously aren't aligned with supporting liberty, and I hate to use companies which don't espouse, or support in some way, the values I believe in. So all of these articles, and businesses, have saved me a lot of time. More so, I love the ones where some companies steps up to fill the void. Those are the companies I'll migrate my business, and my businesses business to.
Nothing like a little private and public sector cleansing!
Excellent link, but I don't think it confirms anything like what you're saying.
"Our project has no leader structure, only different roles. The degree of leadership and organisation in the various projects various a lot," one long-term insider explained. "It's all very chaotic, but we communicate and co-operate with each other. I see us as different cells of the same organism."
I guess you take this to mean that the same people are in on the same things, or at the very least, that there are insiders who are consistent in every attack. Where is I am telling you it's rare to see anyone extremely consistent. If there are a group of attacks which are related, sure, but if you mean these exact same guys (or even just a few of them are exactly the same guys) who were running the Habbo raids, the Epilepsy stuff, the Scientology Stuff. Then you're wrong.
One member said the group's "command and control" centres are invite-only, adding: "It's to protect people, but if you have proven trustworthy you get invited – it's not hard to do. It's not some elitist structure but a way to keep the press and the odd bit of law enforcement seeing who issues commands."
This refers to the control channel, for controlling the bots for the most recent attacks. Not for controlling anonymous. Just in case that was confusing.
What are you talking about? It already has adverts on it. For the past month or so, they've been running a huge advert for this "Jimmy Wales", which as far as I can tell is a sex offender registry or something.
Exactly. You're right. Those protests are a good example.
Now, there are many protests over the years, each one takes a long amount of time to setup, do you think that the SAME group of people who organize EVERY protest in London? Even just the ones over the last 2 years?
This is what you're saying.
You're saying there's a few people, and they are extremely passionate about every single "Anonymous" cause, and they have so much free time that they spend HEAPS of free time setting up each one.
I've been around a lot of these, and I know a few people who organized one, and I know that those individuals didn't go on to organize more, and I doubt that many would organize more than a few.
Have a look at how wide and diverse there list of causes/targets have been, and then come back and tell me it's the exact SAME group every single time.
Slashdot Mirror
Everywhere. Just go dumpster diving. Mind you the hardware can be quite dated, though sometimes not.
If you're willing to put in the man hours (which can be significant), I've had friends build relatively giant clusters of averagely old hardware, by scrounging through others off casts.
In fact, this happens so much, that an old friend of mine started a non-profit, where they would recycle free computers (pull them apart, sort the good bits from the bad bits), then give them on to needy people for free.
The company I worked for recently cleared 3 pallets of this stuff, because NOBODY would take them from us, so we even ended up paying someone to take them and recycle them.
Basically, if you're willing to downgrade to a single core, and 2-4 generation old hardware, then you can EASILY get a free computer, if you're willing to put the effort in. Most aren't willing to put this effort in.
With a repeater THAT regularly, I'd get better speeds with ADSL, with 1km repeaters. Though the ADSL repeaters would need to be powered, where as these are self powered.
LOL Whitney Houston you idiot! Put down the crack pipe, and pick up a magazine once in a while! You know, those things that teach us things? Like who Lindsey is going out with? Remember?
Didn't you learn anything in skool?
First, law, as a concept, is morally neutral, but the rule of law where everyone is equal under the law, is unambiguously a good thing.
This is a much harder conversation, as you'd have to get into the idea of what is and what isn't moral. It is perfectly reasonable that some definition of morality, could hold the concept of law as morally bad. It's too loosely defined to state. The rule of law where everyone is equal, is a similarly ambiguous topic. This is not only plagued with the previous questions problems, but also the problems of putting it into practice. I've got a feeling you haven't studied any of these topics, else you would have studied the philosophy and ambiguity behind it. For the simplest possible question... What is equal? How do we know they are equal? Do we let them be equal? Or do we enforce equality? What consequences do these actions have?
For every policy, even one as seemingly good as "everyone is equal under the law", there are ambiguities, and always instances where it is not a good thing, which also brings us back to the definition of moral (and hence I assume good).
You claim that "IF" the law makes private interconnecting networks between two people without prior legal authorization, we will not be able to form a second Internet. What a huge If! Do you seriously think this will happen? Who would support such a law, and who would it benefit?
Umb... have you read any law? I'm studying a bit at the moment, and having to read quite a lot of it, and every piece of it is written in very ambiguous terms, such that you often don't know whether or not it applies, until trial.
In this case, the GP is saying that any laws if passed, likely wouldn't say "The internet" or make any other specific reference to protocols. It would likely talk about networks in an extremely general terms, such as 'two entities communicating'. This is why current broadcasting laws, can often be applied to the internet. Regardless of the era they were written in.
The Australian Government says it already has the right to impose regulating the internet, in the same way broadcasting, and video stores are regulated, and impose the cost of implementing this regulation on the suppliers (ISP's). This is why every now and then you hear about the Australian Government attempting to regulate the internet, because they don't need to get through new laws, they just use the old laws, because they were written with such a wide and ambiguous scope.
As such, the GP is right, in that any laws written to cover "the internet" would almost certainly similarly cover any "new" internet which pops up in its place. As such, any company/citizen would either immediately have to comply, or be in violation of the law. Given companies couldn't do it without significant risk, immediately makes any "new" internet a no-go proposition.
Where the GP might be wrong, is in them requiring prior legal authorization. However, there is a chance, similar to broadcasting licenses, or even drivers licenses, that they could be required to completely regulate who uses it. If not at the customer level, it would surely be implemented at the ISP level. This is identical to most broadcasting regulation.
I'm sick of these sorts of comments. This is Slashdot people, news for nerds. Don't make these kinds of comments!
We will not know whether or not lawyers are full of hot air enough to reduce terminal velocity to a survivable speed, until we have taken a significantly large random sample, and dropped them from planes.
I suggest we take some aspiring lawyers, and use them as our control, as I couldn't bear the thought of accidentally killing someone who isn't a lawyer.
Scientific rigour, people. Use it!
The question then becomes, was that interest reflective of the true risk at that time. If not, then while it wasn't "free" it was "cheap", and we all like cheap capital. Also, depending on inflation (or was it deflation) over the period, we might have effectively lost.
* Disclaimer: While I do this analysis, I haven't done much on this particular area. Hence the open questions. Perhaps someone who has the time could fill in the details.
I guarantee your money will end up there. Though in all likelihood, only a very small proportion, unless you're managing it yourself, and want to invest more.
It's hard to say whether these people are getting "fleeced" or not, as we scarcely, if ever, know the true value of something.
Sorry, your Slashdot post came through as "it 'just works'", obviously this transmission got garbled and you meant to say "it's made by jerks".
Don't worry, we're used to correcting these problems for Windows Phone 7.
I would be flagged every single time. Though earlier in life I cheated (and was good at it, got 100% on some exams, thanks to weak lecturer passwords), these days I don't, because I really want to learn, and not just get a piece of paper. Though I sometimes wonder if a hybrid approach could be better, since I do want the extreme grades, since they sometimes count.
However, I digress. I'm ADD and Bipolar. While most people think this means "stupid" and can appear stupid, it's isn't necessarily. Basically, some things I get hyper focused and excited on, to the extreme point of spending days awake, working on the problem, sometimes forgetting to eat/drink/etc. On a softer scale, I have trouble retaining attention for "easy" problems, and have less trouble retaining attention for "hard" problems. Because of this, when doing tests, quizzes and exams, I often fuck up the easy ones, and do extremely well on the hard ones.
Based on their stated idea, I'd be flagged as cheating. This would happen in every exam. I wonder how much a university (with a strict no-cheating policy (like they all have)) would tolerate a student continually coming up flagged as cheating, regardless of their ability to prove it. If I get reprimanded for cheating, in my university, then I'm gone for a minimum of 3 years, and other universities in the area, might be warned of me (or at least that's the threat).
That would fucking destroy me. I'm already devastated by my results, as they're always 75%+, but they almost never reflect my competency in the subject. Some subjects it works in my favour, but mostly it works against me.
Side note: In some of my earlier statistics courses, we were privy to some analysis done by the statistics lecturers on various courses, and what variables explain the variation seen in students scores. Consistently in each course it was found that quizzes, attendance, having read the textbook, assignments, and many other variables, were all lousy explanatory variables for the final exam result, and as such the greater the weight of the final exam, the more likely your overall result wouldn't reflect you (working under the axiom that the other material/variables, better explained your competency).
This is quite interesting, at the very least.
* I find it impossible to remain consistent between the usage of the words subject and course, but they both mean the same thing.
LOL Of course not, there's no simulator big enough for that!
But joking aside, I've been keeping up on this for a fair while, and amongst the more credible insiders, a lot of information has been released...
Steve Jobs is designing a new kind of Apple training facility, initially for a few people who work for Apple, but eventually it will be opened to certain segments of the public.
It's supposed to be revolutionary. Someone said it's the final solution to all our training problems. The original idea was developed by a German doctor, who specialized in a certain type of brain training, like Dr Kawashima.
The test facilities were developed in Poland due to their tax incentives, and due to the advantageous location. Though they are a lot smaller, they provide a good idea of what's to come.
Apple apparently has a severe ADD problem in their company, and its known to afflict many programmers. This results in many of their programmers being unable to concentrate, which is a HUGE productivity loss for them.
While certain concentration drugs do help for a limited time, Apple really needed a more effective final solution, which they can use to cleanse these problems. So before any higher training happens, the first stage will be concentration training.
Apparently the Jewish community is afflicted with this disproportionately when compared to the more Nordic or Indo-European races. So I believe they'll be helping them first.
Either way, I'm excited! We're not sure what it's going to be called, but I'm thinking Camp Concentration, or maybe iConcentration? Who knows, either way it's really exciting! For the opening, Apple is apparently renting a pile of trains to cart the first lucky Jews to the facility.
Apple fanboi's that don't get picked, will be so jealous!
I know, right?
Take that, Mr. 3 digit ID.
Oh, though Miss A sounds quite suspicious, her charges at least warrant further investigation (and I believe are the primary ones the prosecution are looking into).
However, we can see that she does have an axe to grind, continued relatively as friends, and later was looking to make money off of it. Not to mention the rest of it, it all decreases the seriousness of her claim, and from the articles so far, I don't believe there's any evidence beyond their words, which are in opposition to each other.
So you're still left at the same conclusion.
Though, I just realized I err on the side of false negatives (beta), and not on false positives (alpha). I would rather a system be setup such that the likelihood of an incorrect verdict, is biased towards keeping people out of jail, than it is putting people in jail. Something other people might not agree on.
That's a good article. Though she has 2 conflicting statements.
She recognizes that this is far beyond the usual treatment and that it is definitely politically motivated. She also recognizes how much the media has tainted peoples views against the girls. However she then goes on to say that a fair trial should be pursued. Do you believe that a fair trial could ever be held now?
Additionally, given the time has lapsed, and that relative to more obvious cases of rape, this one seems particularly less like rape, such that there is no evidence (from what I've been reading, including her articles), that any such force took place, how are we supposed to prosecute when it's merely he said, she said? Essentially, we wouldn't be having a trial on what happened, but a trial on how the jurors perceive the character of the people in question. Something that is already tipped against men.
I just read the comments by people on her post, and they fall to the same problems as the people on the opposite side, they put words in their mouths, and infer that something (which has not been stated) happened, which would define this as clearly rape.
Lastly, from the Guardian...
Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
Now, neither Miss A nor Miss W say that they said no. While Miss A's statement suggests that she did something which should have been inferred as a no, Miss W outright says that she consented. Regardless of any half asleep state, however given she says she was "half asleep", the "surprise sex" part comes in with Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Swedish laws in question, as she is likely saying she was improperly exploited due to this state. Where as the first one is relying on these other actions, and the condom breaking, to say that while she may have implicitly consented to sex, she didn't consent to unprotected sex, though he contests that he knew it was broken.
I just re-read the charges, and they are so light, that I could not be certain that in the usual course of events that I would not also violate the letter of these laws. It would reduce having sex to filming it, and ensuring that a contract is drawn up beforehand which outlined what can and can't be done.
All of this personally comes off as the least sympathe
markets like electrical power generation are susceptible to the greed factor
Luckily regulators and politicians are not susceptible to the greed factor. It's about time we put more power in their hands!
So, which do you want...
A monopoly or a natural monopoly.
A monopoly has all the problems of a natural monopoly with no threat of entry.
A monopoly is a government created monopoly, a natural monopoly is a business in an industry which benefits from extreme economies of scale.
You could go for a regulated oligopoly, though they usually aren't fun either. You can split the businesses, and create all sorts of systems, but none is particularly good, because of the enormous investment required, the overwhelming amount of passionate and motivated stakeholders, and the extreme economies of scale.
If you pretend that one system will have none of the faults of the other, you're wrong, because they aren't inherent in the system, but the market/industry/customers as a whole.
For every bad free market problem (laissez-faire), you can point to an equally bad regulatory problem. Also, don't forget that all "free market" solutions provided so far, have been anything BUT free market solutions. In fact, if you read the VERY article you linked others to most of the discussion is on the regulation that led to this crisis, and only a small fragment of it is on market manipulation. Though the market manipulation was significant, and most visible aspect of the crisis. I recall in the "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room" documentary, that one of the scandalous things they did, was have certain analysts go over the immensely large documentation on regulations on this new "free market" system, and look for trading opportunities. Does that sound like deregulation to the level, that it could be used as evidence against free markets?
I prefer to err on the side of the entrepreneurship, where as you prefer to err on the side of an omnipotent ruler.
LOL What's a...
"Statute of Liberty"
Is that a statute about liberty?
How does one buzz it?
Did he just print it out, and fly his plane over it? If so, that seems like something anyone could do.
And if you believe that, just like the GP, then you're wrong. Very wrong. Not to mention...
"fucking encode whatever paradox they're trying to create in a object hierarchy, and be done with it"
This is a retarded statement. Whether the paradox is represented as a symbol based language (mathematics) or spoken language (philosophy), if they both maintain the same analytical rigor, it makes no difference. The same results can be achieve either way, the language is superfluous, the only difference being the persons/minds ability in using the language for that analysis. In fact, if the symbol based language obscures insight from all but those with an extreme competence in the subject, then it's not necessarily a good language for this discussion. You'll probably agree, unless you're one of those Lojban fuckers!
Have you met my friend Kurt Gödel? He's got quite a lot to say about this very topic.
If you want to read this in a fun, easy to read, well written book, then get Gödel, Escher, Bach. I've only just started reading it, and don't have a background in math (I'm almost retarded with it), but do have a background in programming, and it very quickly explained these complex ideas. Brilliant book. His idea (Godel's and the application Hofstadter comes up with) is so simple, yet so complex, and has application in almost everything.
Can't wait to study more maths!
The economy should not be designed to enforce what you think is an fair or unfair wage, but instead to allow you to receive and pay what you can negotiate for.
Perhaps these H1B's are smarter than your wife, and in greater need of a job.
Given the choice is between destroying the lives of these H1B's and you getting a bigger salary, I'm going to err on the side of the H1B's. Given they are accepting less, I all but guarantee they're coming from far worse situations than you are.
You are correct, there is no script or formula which a victim follows. However, given there is no significant evidence to the contrary, we can not be expected to take someones word for it, given they essentially looked like anyone else would.
If you do not agree with this, then you're essentially opening up anyone to put anyone else in jail for rape, as you're saying we require no substantiative proof, other than 'a participant said so a week later'.
"no means no" is totally irrelevant here, and is just a strawman argument. The question is whether its reasonable to take only one persons word, later on, in the face of other evidence, as evidence with which to convict a man, and destroy his life.
I don't think it is.
I've been following this reasonably closely, and I don't believe there has been ANY other substantiative evidence, has there?
Good work!
I smell duplicity.
I have been loving these articles, as it routes out the companies that obviously aren't aligned with supporting liberty, and I hate to use companies which don't espouse, or support in some way, the values I believe in. So all of these articles, and businesses, have saved me a lot of time. More so, I love the ones where some companies steps up to fill the void. Those are the companies I'll migrate my business, and my businesses business to.
Nothing like a little private and public sector cleansing!
They're not talking about shutting down HIS account, they're talking about stopping YOUR account from transferring TO HIS account.
Come on, RTFS at least!
No.
Never have segue episodes in a progressive show. these episodes destroy the show.
Excellent link, but I don't think it confirms anything like what you're saying.
"Our project has no leader structure, only different roles. The degree of leadership and organisation in the various projects various a lot," one long-term insider explained. "It's all very chaotic, but we communicate and co-operate with each other. I see us as different cells of the same organism."
I guess you take this to mean that the same people are in on the same things, or at the very least, that there are insiders who are consistent in every attack. Where is I am telling you it's rare to see anyone extremely consistent. If there are a group of attacks which are related, sure, but if you mean these exact same guys (or even just a few of them are exactly the same guys) who were running the Habbo raids, the Epilepsy stuff, the Scientology Stuff. Then you're wrong.
One member said the group's "command and control" centres are invite-only, adding: "It's to protect people, but if you have proven trustworthy you get invited – it's not hard to do. It's not some elitist structure but a way to keep the press and the odd bit of law enforcement seeing who issues commands."
This refers to the control channel, for controlling the bots for the most recent attacks. Not for controlling anonymous. Just in case that was confusing.
What are you talking about? It already has adverts on it. For the past month or so, they've been running a huge advert for this "Jimmy Wales", which as far as I can tell is a sex offender registry or something.
Exactly. You're right. Those protests are a good example.
Now, there are many protests over the years, each one takes a long amount of time to setup, do you think that the SAME group of people who organize EVERY protest in London? Even just the ones over the last 2 years?
This is what you're saying.
You're saying there's a few people, and they are extremely passionate about every single "Anonymous" cause, and they have so much free time that they spend HEAPS of free time setting up each one.
I've been around a lot of these, and I know a few people who organized one, and I know that those individuals didn't go on to organize more, and I doubt that many would organize more than a few.
Have a look at how wide and diverse there list of causes/targets have been, and then come back and tell me it's the exact SAME group every single time.
kthxbai