then they would be hostile towards IT anyway and there's probably nothing that can be done
And that's precisely the situation I find myself in right now. I reached the conclusion that nothing can be done and, honestly? I stopped caring. But that's not the way I should be working.
where I live is the Data Retention Law passed by the EU gov't a few years ago requiring compulsory, ID-validated registration of all users of any ISPesque service together with retention of visited URLs (and other internet activity I cannot remember) for 2 years. If that's not enough to stop any mesh networking initiative then I don't know what is.
I'd like to add to your post this Note to the dumb: this includes "offensive" speech and yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Like so many things, it's an all or nothing proposition.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a laser be much easier to target and wouldn't it hit much more often than conventional weapons where there is a noticeable lag between firing and the bullet/whatever hitting the target? I would imagine laser moves at the speed of light, so there would be virtually no lag at all. Also, how much energy would such a weapon require to punch through armor and the likes?
The last time somebody broke into my home, I would have certainly liked to shoot him in the face. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to do so. The previous time, my dog was still alive and gave the asshole a hard time. When my father was approached by a violent man who threatened him with a sharp tool (huge scissors, to be exact), I think it would have been sensible to at least show, but even better use, a weapon on him. NB: I live in a nice area in a good city in a European country. NB2: Switzerland is heavily armed. Norway is, too. Both countries have amazingly low crime rates.
No, it's simply a cultural reason. Egyptians wouldn't eat cats, we won't eat dogs, Indians won't eat cows and other cultures won't eat horses (which I for one like to eat from time to time). Health reasons are never a concern, most animals can be consumed pretty safely as long as you cook them well. But every culture has its own little quirks:P
How about not getting married in the first place, then. Seems so easy to me to just go live together happily. That's what I'm going to do if and when the time comes.
Well, maybe that's a good idea. But in the long run I believe really bad guys are arrested and sentenced way more often than normal people who make the occasional mistake - this by itself should be enough to solve the problem, if punishment were setup so that it scales more than linearly.
Wait a second here! You're very close to condemning his intentions, not his actions. Yeah I agree this guy is a dick, but unless he actually runs someone over while drunk, he hasn't done anything wrong. Now I understand he's killed quite a few people already and I'm wondering why he's still running free; but if you notice, we're falling back to granularity here. It's just like you say, Nth time you do this? M years in jail it is then. Remorse is impossible to prove. Damage done, on the other hand, isn't! I stand by my opinion, flexibility in sentencing does way more harm than good.
I strongly disagree with this. How criminals feel or pretend to feel changes exactly nothing WRT what they have done to their victims. Feeling sorry rather than smug after the fact doesn't make their victims suffer any less. Besides, it's impossible to prove regret: you end up with a system that lets good actors walk while bad ones end up in jail. Acting skills should have no relevance when dealing out punishment.
The very concpet of mitigating circumstances is fundamentally wrong - either what you have done is illegal or it is not. There cannot and must not be any middle ground - just like judges should have no authority whatsoever to decide how much punishment to inflict. In fact, there should be a very simple lookup table for that. Judges should simply be professional trial managers, who watch over the whole process and keep it in line with the relevant laws. If you feel differently, then this simply means that your system needs more *granularity*, not a whole lot of what-ifs and but-thens.
It's not the only way (think referrer) and anyway it's very shoddy security... Once you decide that users need to authenticate to access some content, you lock ALL such content and not just the gateway to it behind your auth system. Arcane URLs are not sufficient unless you want extremely low security.
I also think that 15% is way too much (I'd be OK with maybe 1-2%) but then again if it's really so easy to make a site like this and run it for much less, somebody else will do it and win all the customers. Come to think of it, this kind of site can be coded in a couple of days:) I guess promotion is going to cost, though.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of cases where government gets it right, plenty of cases where businesses get it wrong.
Oh really? Could you give us an example?
But we "change the equation" every single time we give any kind of medical treatment to anyone. Why are you singling this specific treatment out?
then they would be hostile towards IT anyway and there's probably nothing that can be done
And that's precisely the situation I find myself in right now. I reached the conclusion that nothing can be done and, honestly? I stopped caring. But that's not the way I should be working.
the only thing stopping this from happening
where I live is the Data Retention Law passed by the EU gov't a few years ago requiring compulsory, ID-validated registration of all users of any ISPesque service together with retention of visited URLs (and other internet activity I cannot remember) for 2 years. If that's not enough to stop any mesh networking initiative then I don't know what is.
Because JPEG is not lossy? Since when?
Whuh? The goods are *stolen* but they cannot be confiscated by the gov't? Unbelievable. Must be a really weird quirk in the law system.
Cute PDF. There, now you won't have to spend a lot of time to find a PDF printer.
Well, if there are no differences, then why do you oppose the other system? It would suit you just as fine.
Wow, a revisionist. I guess the Holocaust did not take place, either? Are you paid by the gov't or doing this just for fun?
I'd like to add to your post this
Note to the dumb: this includes "offensive" speech and yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Like so many things, it's an all or nothing proposition.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a laser be much easier to target and wouldn't it hit much more often than conventional weapons where there is a noticeable lag between firing and the bullet/whatever hitting the target? I would imagine laser moves at the speed of light, so there would be virtually no lag at all. Also, how much energy would such a weapon require to punch through armor and the likes?
but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?
The last time somebody broke into my home, I would have certainly liked to shoot him in the face. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to do so. The previous time, my dog was still alive and gave the asshole a hard time. When my father was approached by a violent man who threatened him with a sharp tool (huge scissors, to be exact), I think it would have been sensible to at least show, but even better use, a weapon on him.
NB: I live in a nice area in a good city in a European country.
NB2: Switzerland is heavily armed. Norway is, too. Both countries have amazingly low crime rates.
It seems to work pretty well on Opera 9.51 on Vista. Linky here http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ilsitexw5.png
People on the left, instead, welcome everything that conflicts with theirs? Get a grip
Sweet baby Jesus... take a look at this comment: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22940&cid=2469147 This dbrutus guy is a visionary
No, it's simply a cultural reason. Egyptians wouldn't eat cats, we won't eat dogs, Indians won't eat cows and other cultures won't eat horses (which I for one like to eat from time to time). Health reasons are never a concern, most animals can be consumed pretty safely as long as you cook them well. But every culture has its own little quirks :P
How about not getting married in the first place, then. Seems so easy to me to just go live together happily. That's what I'm going to do if and when the time comes.
Well, maybe that's a good idea. But in the long run I believe really bad guys are arrested and sentenced way more often than normal people who make the occasional mistake - this by itself should be enough to solve the problem, if punishment were setup so that it scales more than linearly.
Wait a second here! You're very close to condemning his intentions, not his actions. Yeah I agree this guy is a dick, but unless he actually runs someone over while drunk, he hasn't done anything wrong. Now I understand he's killed quite a few people already and I'm wondering why he's still running free; but if you notice, we're falling back to granularity here. It's just like you say, Nth time you do this? M years in jail it is then. Remorse is impossible to prove. Damage done, on the other hand, isn't! I stand by my opinion, flexibility in sentencing does way more harm than good.
Ask them, I'm a non-French European too. But I see you have missed the point completely.
I strongly disagree with this. How criminals feel or pretend to feel changes exactly nothing WRT what they have done to their victims. Feeling sorry rather than smug after the fact doesn't make their victims suffer any less. Besides, it's impossible to prove regret: you end up with a system that lets good actors walk while bad ones end up in jail. Acting skills should have no relevance when dealing out punishment.
The very concpet of mitigating circumstances is fundamentally wrong - either what you have done is illegal or it is not. There cannot and must not be any middle ground - just like judges should have no authority whatsoever to decide how much punishment to inflict. In fact, there should be a very simple lookup table for that. Judges should simply be professional trial managers, who watch over the whole process and keep it in line with the relevant laws. If you feel differently, then this simply means that your system needs more *granularity*, not a whole lot of what-ifs and but-thens.
It's not the only way (think referrer) and anyway it's very shoddy security... Once you decide that users need to authenticate to access some content, you lock ALL such content and not just the gateway to it behind your auth system. Arcane URLs are not sufficient unless you want extremely low security.
What you want to do is refuse to help for several years even though your supposed friends are getting killed in the millions
Damned if they don't
Ensure that you become a superpower in the process and enjoy sixty years of fucking over the rest of the world!
Damned if they do
I also think that 15% is way too much (I'd be OK with maybe 1-2%) but then again if it's really so easy to make a site like this and run it for much less, somebody else will do it and win all the customers. Come to think of it, this kind of site can be coded in a couple of days :) I guess promotion is going to cost, though.
Would you please point me towards an army whose SOP is "rather 1 of us then N of them" then, and specify the relevant N.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?