Constant surveillance assumes you are going to do something wrong. In America, we are innocent until proven guilty. There's no reason to look for evidence until there is suspicion of wrongdoing, and that's the problem here.
You seem a bit confused. First, we have a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy is very dangerous, as the Founders knew, so they tried to safeguard us from it. (See "mob rule".) Second, money is not considered speech, but it should be. The law allows me to speak freely on behalf of political candidates, but I cannot contribute money freely. Third parties (and challengers of any kind to incumbents) are at a severe disadvantage because of this. Spending and contribution limits should be removed completely.
If you want freedom, abolish the Federal Reserve, and repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
Recommended in the release notes, perhaps, but it's bad software practice. It creates an unreasonable burden on the user
Of course it's unreasonable for typical end users. But not for developers and early adopters. This is 0.9.3 after all...it's a pre-release version. If you're not somewhat savvy with computers, you shouldn't be using this. "Not installing on top of a previous installation" is one of the very first tricks a user learns on his way to savviness.
OTOH, if this were a 1.0 or higher, I'd be screaming about the complexity burden, too. Normal users shouldn't have to deal with this sort of stuff. If nothing else, the installer should move the existing folder out of the way, it's not that hard to do.
I always install new releases into their own folder: Mozilla 0.9.2, Mozilla 0.9.3, nightly20010731, whatever. This has been recommended practice from day 1, AFAIK. It also allows me to check for differences between them, for when my memory gets fuzzy. (Is that a new bug or have I seen it before?)
I expect two things to happen if bills like this pass:
Homeschooling will become a lot more popular.
Homeschooling will therefore eventually become illegal, since it's important to the corporations and government that kids be properly indoctrinated.
I don't know about you guys, but it looks to me like the good 'ol USA is slowly turning into its former Communist enemy, the USSR.
So are you voting in protest to the current regime? We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to use every legal means to correct this before resorting to a rebellion. The Constitution and Libertarian parties are working to limit the size of gov't. Are you supporting them? Are you voting for them? Are you petitioning your legislature for voting laws that are fairer to 3rd parties?
I voted for every CP and LP person I could in the last election. I'm considering running as a candidate in 2002. You may not agree fully with one or the other (or either, I suppose) but you know things are not going to improve if you keep voting for the Repubocrat duopoly.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Elections are not a horse race. You don't put a bet on which one you think will win, hoping for a big pay off when he does. Your "bet" is what determines the winner of the race! Buck the trend, don't be a sheep, vote third party. If you don't vote for what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
That's why they have absentee voting. I've voted up to two months (IIRC) ahead of time in years past. There's really nothing holding you back from voting if you care to do so.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Right. As another poster said, this is the difference between "unsigned" speech and "unaccountable" speech.
Sometimes, it's important and even necessary to speak anonymously to protect yourself from possible illegal retribution by your enemies. In this case, it's good that you can speak anonymously. However, if your intent in speaking anonymously is to avoid legal repercussions, then you should still have to face the consequences.
While it is important to protect those who have legitimate need for anonymity, we also need to ensure accountability for those abusing it. Doing both is hard.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
This specific case seems pretty clearly a trademark infringement, yes. I don't see any reason NuSphere would register mysql.org other than to get some of MySQL's action.
I believe the rest of my arguments are valid, though. It's ridiculous to expect Foo to register foo.* to protect a trademark. If you can show that notFoo is infringing on Foo by registering a similar domain name, fine. But merely having the same name between the www and the TLD isn't enough to show that. I think you as much as say that yourself in example 2 - in many situations is perfectly acceptable to have the same name. And I think the problem could be eliminated (or drastically reduced) by eliminating gTLD's in favor of ccTLD's and let nations deal with their own trademark laws. These things should not be a global issue.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
MySQL is already defending their trademark by having mysql.com registered. The whole point of having different TLD's is so that different entities with the same name can have a domain with their name in it.
I can see how this might be a problem if MySQL did not yet have a web presence and someone else came along and squatted on mysql.* or something. But that's not the case here.
Once again, it comes back to the existence of gTLD's in the first place. It was a mistake. Only ccTLD's should be allowed. Let individual countries duke out their trademark issues as they see fit, under their own laws. We enlightened geeks know that MySQL is a Swedish company, thus mysql.com.se is the real domain. If someone else comes along and registers mysql.org.us, or heck even mysql.com.us that would be fine. I think the registrars should have very specific rules to disallow a single entity from buying up all the trademark.* domains.
The other solution is to go the other way, and allow any gTLD to be created, but nobody can own them, whether it's a trademark or not. So there could be a.mysql or even.microsoft but anybody could have a domain in it.
I don't like the latter idea nearly as well, because it throws trademarks out the window altogether, at least online. The former idea left it up to the country the company is from, which is where it belongs.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
So does this mean that data about radioactive materials itself has a half-life? No wonder I can't remember my college physics classes! All my memories decayed!
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I, too, wish they would go with a smaller ship with a more primitive look. It should definitely have a crew smaller than 430, maybe only 100-150. It should be cramped, like a submarine. It should have larger, inefficient engines. Was dilithium discovered yet (allowing greater power), or did they just have basic matter/antimatter? No transporter technology yet.
I don't even like that they're calling it "Enterprise" to begin with. Why wasn't this Enterprise hanging on the wall in Picard's ready room, or pictured on the rec deck in ST:TMP with the others? It also ticks me off that the writers of the series don't take pointers from the novelists, who come up with much better explanations for alot of the things in the Trek universe. Why make up something bizarre and new when a better, more elegant explanation (that would work just as well) already exists? *sigh*
The Vulcans already had a warp ship by the time they met Cochrane, and the Romulans split well before then. The Romulans are definitely capable of warp technology, though they may not have built it yet. I think they're relatively xenophobic.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Correct. But these consumers' choices will dictate how much the vendor can charge. Supply and demand. So, the consumer does set the prices, albeit indirectly.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Reminds me of when I was working the help line at my university. One day as I was sitting in the lab, someone left their VAX terminal logged on. I did my standard email-to-self, "This is your conscience reminding you to log out when you leave," and also added a login file to change the normal "$" prompt to be the user's first name. Then I logged the user out.
A former roommate, who worked a different shift in the lab, said this person showed up the next day and freaked out. Couldn't figure out where the "$" went and thought her account was broken. I guess she didn't realize that all her commands worked the same as before.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
No, perl rocks. What's the difference? Perl, unlike MS, can't steamroll the competition. If Perl could force C++ and VB to die and their programmers to use Perl instead, then it would be a Microsoft.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Yeah, except that Apple developed that clipboard first.
Microsoft has never innovated anything independently. They simply grab up useful things and steamroll over anything that gets in their way.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
please use correct terms
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Eco-terrorist correctly implies that these people are loons. Terrorism is never an answer to anything.
Pro-life rights activists are not all gun-wielding freaks. Please make the distinction. I support the inalienable right to life that we all have, but I haven't shot people that disagree with me.
Note that the term "anti-abortionist" is often used because of the negative connotation that "anti" anything carries with it, which is why I don't use it. (The media plays on that one real well. Follow the news and count the times "anti-abortion" is used vs "pro-life".) If we're going to head that way, let's use terms like "anti-life rights activists" too.
Violent resistance is a tough one to defend. In cases I believe it's justified. I look at the Revolution of 1776 as a case in point.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
If training is a Good, then businesses that employ it will prosper, and businesses that don't will die. That's free market economy in action. It doesn't need to be legislated. If some boss wants to be stupid, let him.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I certainly wouldn't expect one's employer to finance one's professional credentials. Those benefit the employee more than the employer.
However, I feel a reasonable compromise would be to let the employee take a reasonable amount of extra time off to maintain certification without touching his PTO. If you need to take an annual one-day exam to stay certified, the employer should feel your skills are worth it. If you need to leave for two weeks for MCSE classes though, I could understand why an employer wouldn't want to give you that much extra time off. Maybe you could just order the books and study on your own.
At least, I don't know how it is with anyone else, but I only get a total of 10 days off (barring holidays) a year. I need that time for R&R. I don't want to spend it in certification exams.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I'd have to agree with that. I now work for a large hospital. Though I've only been here 3 months, I've already been to one week of training. I have another day coming up next month.
Around here, training classes get scheduled based on amount of demand. If enough people request it, the class will be coming. The class is announced on a mailing list. You tell your supervisor that you're interested, and if you get approval, you write back to the list operator and you're enrolled. We're asked to limit our requests to things applicable to our projects, but that's reasonable. (I've heard that it's OK to occasionally take a class based on general interest.) It's a pretty nice system.
My first project here involves Java heavily, which I have some experience in, but the week refresher was very nice. The one day next month is for Swing, which I haven't used. At first my supervisor balked because he didn't realize my project used Swing. As soon as I told him it did, I was approved.
This is a vast improvement over my last job, which was a small web shop. In over two years I didn't get any training. Whatever I learned was from books and coworkers. They were willing to buy books if we needed them, but you can only learn so much from reading if the topic is hard. Show me, or explain the specific difficulties I'm having, and I can learn better.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
It would have been good if MS left these in the browser but with NO filters enabled by default.
Exactly. That would be an example of MS enabling users with innovative new features. But MS wanted to go one step farther and assume that we'd always want to go where they told us to.
Making the news of this technology public well ahead of its release, with public documentation of how it is used, so that others could release filters simultaneously thereby giving users the option...that would be smart. Which is probably why MS didn't think of it. I think SmartTags might actually be a good idea, if I had control over which were used, with no defaults assumed. I might actually make use of a Slashdot filter, for instance. It would also allow sites to supply their own filters for common terms they use, meaning less <abbr title="whatever"> (and similar) markup. (Not that the same couldn't be done by search-and-replace in a preprocessing step...)
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Judges disable computer surveillance software. Why are cameras in public any different?
Constant surveillance assumes you are going to do something wrong. In America, we are innocent until proven guilty. There's no reason to look for evidence until there is suspicion of wrongdoing, and that's the problem here.
You seem a bit confused. First, we have a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy is very dangerous, as the Founders knew, so they tried to safeguard us from it. (See "mob rule".) Second, money is not considered speech, but it should be. The law allows me to speak freely on behalf of political candidates, but I cannot contribute money freely. Third parties (and challengers of any kind to incumbents) are at a severe disadvantage because of this. Spending and contribution limits should be removed completely.
If you want freedom, abolish the Federal Reserve, and repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
Of course it's unreasonable for typical end users. But not for developers and early adopters. This is 0.9.3 after all...it's a pre-release version. If you're not somewhat savvy with computers, you shouldn't be using this. "Not installing on top of a previous installation" is one of the very first tricks a user learns on his way to savviness.
OTOH, if this were a 1.0 or higher, I'd be screaming about the complexity burden, too. Normal users shouldn't have to deal with this sort of stuff. If nothing else, the installer should move the existing folder out of the way, it's not that hard to do.
Opera has had bookmark shortcuts (keywords) for quite some time now. Now if only Opera would support the sidebar feature.
I always install new releases into their own folder: Mozilla 0.9.2, Mozilla 0.9.3, nightly20010731, whatever. This has been recommended practice from day 1, AFAIK. It also allows me to check for differences between them, for when my memory gets fuzzy. (Is that a new bug or have I seen it before?)
Take your pick. Both are working to limit the size of government.
There are alternatives to the Repubocrat duopoly available. If you don't like the current regime, you have no excuse.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
So are you voting in protest to the current regime? We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to use every legal means to correct this before resorting to a rebellion. The Constitution and Libertarian parties are working to limit the size of gov't. Are you supporting them? Are you voting for them? Are you petitioning your legislature for voting laws that are fairer to 3rd parties?
I voted for every CP and LP person I could in the last election. I'm considering running as a candidate in 2002. You may not agree fully with one or the other (or either, I suppose) but you know things are not going to improve if you keep voting for the Repubocrat duopoly.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Elections are not a horse race. You don't put a bet on which one you think will win, hoping for a big pay off when he does. Your "bet" is what determines the winner of the race! Buck the trend, don't be a sheep, vote third party. If you don't vote for what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
That's why they have absentee voting. I've voted up to two months (IIRC) ahead of time in years past. There's really nothing holding you back from voting if you care to do so.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
"Both candidates"? Funny, I was sure there were more than two. In fact, I voted for one.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Right. As another poster said, this is the difference between "unsigned" speech and "unaccountable" speech.
Sometimes, it's important and even necessary to speak anonymously to protect yourself from possible illegal retribution by your enemies. In this case, it's good that you can speak anonymously. However, if your intent in speaking anonymously is to avoid legal repercussions, then you should still have to face the consequences.
While it is important to protect those who have legitimate need for anonymity, we also need to ensure accountability for those abusing it. Doing both is hard.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
This specific case seems pretty clearly a trademark infringement, yes. I don't see any reason NuSphere would register mysql.org other than to get some of MySQL's action.
I believe the rest of my arguments are valid, though. It's ridiculous to expect Foo to register foo.* to protect a trademark. If you can show that notFoo is infringing on Foo by registering a similar domain name, fine. But merely having the same name between the www and the TLD isn't enough to show that. I think you as much as say that yourself in example 2 - in many situations is perfectly acceptable to have the same name. And I think the problem could be eliminated (or drastically reduced) by eliminating gTLD's in favor of ccTLD's and let nations deal with their own trademark laws. These things should not be a global issue.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
MySQL is already defending their trademark by having mysql.com registered. The whole point of having different TLD's is so that different entities with the same name can have a domain with their name in it.
I can see how this might be a problem if MySQL did not yet have a web presence and someone else came along and squatted on mysql.* or something. But that's not the case here.
Once again, it comes back to the existence of gTLD's in the first place. It was a mistake. Only ccTLD's should be allowed. Let individual countries duke out their trademark issues as they see fit, under their own laws. We enlightened geeks know that MySQL is a Swedish company, thus mysql.com.se is the real domain. If someone else comes along and registers mysql.org.us, or heck even mysql.com.us that would be fine. I think the registrars should have very specific rules to disallow a single entity from buying up all the trademark.* domains.
The other solution is to go the other way, and allow any gTLD to be created, but nobody can own them, whether it's a trademark or not. So there could be a .mysql or even .microsoft but anybody could have a domain in it.
I don't like the latter idea nearly as well, because it throws trademarks out the window altogether, at least online. The former idea left it up to the country the company is from, which is where it belongs.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
So does this mean that data about radioactive materials itself has a half-life? No wonder I can't remember my college physics classes! All my memories decayed!
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I, too, wish they would go with a smaller ship with a more primitive look. It should definitely have a crew smaller than 430, maybe only 100-150. It should be cramped, like a submarine. It should have larger, inefficient engines. Was dilithium discovered yet (allowing greater power), or did they just have basic matter/antimatter? No transporter technology yet.
I don't even like that they're calling it "Enterprise" to begin with. Why wasn't this Enterprise hanging on the wall in Picard's ready room, or pictured on the rec deck in ST:TMP with the others? It also ticks me off that the writers of the series don't take pointers from the novelists, who come up with much better explanations for alot of the things in the Trek universe. Why make up something bizarre and new when a better, more elegant explanation (that would work just as well) already exists? *sigh*
The Vulcans already had a warp ship by the time they met Cochrane, and the Romulans split well before then. The Romulans are definitely capable of warp technology, though they may not have built it yet. I think they're relatively xenophobic.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Correct. But these consumers' choices will dictate how much the vendor can charge. Supply and demand. So, the consumer does set the prices, albeit indirectly.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Reminds me of when I was working the help line at my university. One day as I was sitting in the lab, someone left their VAX terminal logged on. I did my standard email-to-self, "This is your conscience reminding you to log out when you leave," and also added a login file to change the normal "$" prompt to be the user's first name. Then I logged the user out.
A former roommate, who worked a different shift in the lab, said this person showed up the next day and freaked out. Couldn't figure out where the "$" went and thought her account was broken. I guess she didn't realize that all her commands worked the same as before.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
No, perl rocks. What's the difference? Perl, unlike MS, can't steamroll the competition. If Perl could force C++ and VB to die and their programmers to use Perl instead, then it would be a Microsoft.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Yeah, except that Apple developed that clipboard first.
Microsoft has never innovated anything independently. They simply grab up useful things and steamroll over anything that gets in their way.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Eco-terrorist correctly implies that these people are loons. Terrorism is never an answer to anything.
Pro-life rights activists are not all gun-wielding freaks. Please make the distinction. I support the inalienable right to life that we all have, but I haven't shot people that disagree with me.
Note that the term "anti-abortionist" is often used because of the negative connotation that "anti" anything carries with it, which is why I don't use it. (The media plays on that one real well. Follow the news and count the times "anti-abortion" is used vs "pro-life".) If we're going to head that way, let's use terms like "anti-life rights activists" too.
Violent resistance is a tough one to defend. In cases I believe it's justified. I look at the Revolution of 1776 as a case in point.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Why the heck even bother with legislation?
If training is a Good, then businesses that employ it will prosper, and businesses that don't will die. That's free market economy in action. It doesn't need to be legislated. If some boss wants to be stupid, let him.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I can see the interview now...
(Interviewer glancing through resume looks up.) "So, what are your skills, umm...tongue?"
And if you get the job...
(New boss shaking hands.) "We've got some exciting challenges ahead, and we're glad to have you on board to lick 'em for us."
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I certainly wouldn't expect one's employer to finance one's professional credentials. Those benefit the employee more than the employer.
However, I feel a reasonable compromise would be to let the employee take a reasonable amount of extra time off to maintain certification without touching his PTO. If you need to take an annual one-day exam to stay certified, the employer should feel your skills are worth it. If you need to leave for two weeks for MCSE classes though, I could understand why an employer wouldn't want to give you that much extra time off. Maybe you could just order the books and study on your own.
At least, I don't know how it is with anyone else, but I only get a total of 10 days off (barring holidays) a year. I need that time for R&R. I don't want to spend it in certification exams.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I'd have to agree with that. I now work for a large hospital. Though I've only been here 3 months, I've already been to one week of training. I have another day coming up next month.
Around here, training classes get scheduled based on amount of demand. If enough people request it, the class will be coming. The class is announced on a mailing list. You tell your supervisor that you're interested, and if you get approval, you write back to the list operator and you're enrolled. We're asked to limit our requests to things applicable to our projects, but that's reasonable. (I've heard that it's OK to occasionally take a class based on general interest.) It's a pretty nice system.
My first project here involves Java heavily, which I have some experience in, but the week refresher was very nice. The one day next month is for Swing, which I haven't used. At first my supervisor balked because he didn't realize my project used Swing. As soon as I told him it did, I was approved.
This is a vast improvement over my last job, which was a small web shop. In over two years I didn't get any training. Whatever I learned was from books and coworkers. They were willing to buy books if we needed them, but you can only learn so much from reading if the topic is hard. Show me, or explain the specific difficulties I'm having, and I can learn better.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Exactly. That would be an example of MS enabling users with innovative new features. But MS wanted to go one step farther and assume that we'd always want to go where they told us to.
Making the news of this technology public well ahead of its release, with public documentation of how it is used, so that others could release filters simultaneously thereby giving users the option...that would be smart. Which is probably why MS didn't think of it. I think SmartTags might actually be a good idea, if I had control over which were used, with no defaults assumed. I might actually make use of a Slashdot filter, for instance. It would also allow sites to supply their own filters for common terms they use, meaning less <abbr title="whatever"> (and similar) markup. (Not that the same couldn't be done by search-and-replace in a preprocessing step...)
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.