I think the right to be anonymous is more important than knowing who said what. You just know that the politicians put this law in place so that they could harass or politically destroy those who would speak against them. It's a "strategic *law* against public participation".
I've been thinking about this lately. Been watching too many dramas where a criminal wants to "face his accuser".
Saying something that the established power base does not want to be heard has consequences. Revealing one's identity can result in injury or death. This is why so many criminals never face justice - what witness wants to have a gang destroy their lives? What individual wants to be targeted by a main political party with threat of police action or secret retribution?
Anonymity is a fundamental part of freedom of speech. Without it there can be no true free speech.
Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.
Pretty much.
Australian laws are largely created to criminalise anybody, anytime. You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.
If you think you haven't committed any crimes today you'll have a retrospective law applied to you in the future. Never fear, nobody gets away!
This is more anti American propaganda and I'm entirely against it.
I'm guessing you've never actually travelled outside your own borders; or if you have, never alone.
There's a saying, better to be thought of as stupid than open your mouth and confirm it... if you don't like stereotypes about USA citizens then you're far better off not confirming them.
You live in society, you follow society's stupid rules.
Not in London you don't. You throw your garbage anywhere. You park and block people in anytime. You never cover your mouth when you cough, even in crowded metropolitan transport. You cut in line, and start a fight if someone asks you to go to the back of the line. You listen to your leaky cheap Apple headphones as loudly as possible so that everyone in the carriage knows you like Eminem. Oh, and you steal from grocery stores, particularly if it's a crowded New Year's Eve and you and your gang of mates know full well no one can stop you.
If you're Islamic, you get to wear a full head veil and only show your eyes, even in a bank (I've seen this in Ealing)! If you're Sikh you're legally permitted to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
If you're poor, you get to burgle property, threaten the lives of those inside, and watch the owner go to jail when he tries to protect himself.
For as many student that go through the school are students not bred into the Microsoft culture and not dependent on their software to be productive.
Gladiators were taught to fight with heavy wooden swords so that the real sword would be easier to handle.
Surely it is better to give students crippled operating systems such as Vista so that their introduction to real world technology is a pleasant one? Rather than go the other way around?
The simple fact is that ignoring robots.txt is effectively evil, regardless of the intent. It's not like robots.txt is some new innovation...
Since when did Microsoft feel existing standards were something to honour? How many times have its browsers changed behaviour? Re-defined entrenched URL standards (you cannot specify username/password in an Internet Explorer URL but this is a legal standard form of URL)?
It stands to reason Microsoft would take no notice of anything your website has to say.
Unless.. of course.. Microsoft define a certificate type that can sign your Microsoft-specific format exception list after payment on an annual licensing basis..
Oh hey, another Microsoft example: Vista! After all, why assume someone upgrading their operating system might expect the same if not better!
but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random
Show me a cop that doesn't speed when the blues and twos are off. Show me a cop that indicates when approaching a t-intersection. Cops can't drive. And they don't do spot checks, only pulling over someone involved in a burglary or have their insurance or registration expired.
Most Londoners can't drive. They dive between lanes, slam their brakes on in the middle of motorways, pull out and block traffic at will.
Microsoft is in the business of making money and licensing of its wares is just part of the game.
Creating a software product and selling it is fair enough. Creating a standard, expecting everyone to use it, then charging a license fee for it is _evil_.
That's like the power company deciding to sell you power. Then charging you license fees for installing power sockets in your home that conform to the standard.
If you are not interested in your own privacy why add to this debate? Clearly you never checked out what options there were for controlling 3rd-party access to your details, you didn't care then and you don't care now.
Hey, you made that assumption, not me. You wouldn't pick an actual racial stereotype because you're afraid of being politically correct. I'm just pointing out that people with a particular gene is just as likely to behave differently from anybody else that shares a particular genetic difference.
I'm just having a go at all those "we're all the same" tyrants who ought to be attacking anyone who considers Down Syndrome or any other genetic difference as something politically incorrect to notice or talk about in an adult manner!
We got him to do the hassling as he couldn't sense the irritation of the people he was calling.
Why? Because he had "mild Aspergers"? That's so stereotypical! Imagine if you began to think certain racial stereotypes were dominant in certain industries because of certain stereotypical behavioural types?
This is, of course, bullshit. Being aware that people are assigned to different races, and treated differently because of this, is not racism, it's the first step in getting rid of racism. Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, is just a way of pretending that racism doesn't exist, and so will inevitably perpetuate it.
Picking and choosing what racism is leads to situations whereby innocent people are attacked, lose their jobs, and are branded pariahs because of a popularist opinion. Intent doesn't matter.
Let's consider the act of children. Often they tease one another. They tease about your funny-sounding last name. They tease about your father's profession. They tease about your weight or lack of weight. They tease about your private body parts or the way you move. They tease about your intelligence or lack thereof. They tease about your hair style. They tease about your skin colour (even when you're burnt or pale).
Now let's consider the act of adults. They can tease about stupidity. They can tease about money. They can tease about weight. They can tease about accents and behaviour. They can tease about looks. They can tease about names. Except if that person is from a racial background that refuses to accept criticism.
So what's the resulting behaviour? Avoid certain races in the workplace. They might sue you for racism regardless of the intent. Avoid certain races in the street. They might attack you then claim you incited racial hatred.
At the end of the day anybody who says that one person is entitled to being treated differently to another on the base of race is a racist.
There comes a time when society as a whole should become sick of popularist definitions of racism and just embrace the title.
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat
Clearly your definition of racism is different from mine. I view racism as any act that distinguishes somebody on their race. By that definition I would say nearly all democrats are "racist" as they use race as one of their election platforms (a truly non-racist party would not need to promote equality legislation that distinguishes race as a factor). Neither would they feel the need to denigrate anyone in opposition to their candidate as "morally reprehensible racists". The fact is that if both Republicans and Democrats put up candidates of identical race there would still be votes for both. It is clear that Democrats, therefore, are an extremely racist party by any definition.
As a foreign viewer of the American presidential race I was astounded to the extent that self-promotion based on race was a factor.
I think exceptions _are_ fundamentally superior over error codes, and I am quite curious about why the designers decided not to put them in Go.
Have a look at the Go Language FAQ. It states very clearly why exceptions were not added to Go. It also states the design goals of the language.
Have you ever considered, from an assembly language perspective, what exception processing looks like? How handling of multiple stack frames might take place? Have you ever implemented your own exception handling methodology in C? If not then demanding exceptions from all languages illustrates naivety.
If you want languages that provide safety then you must sacrifice speed.
I, personally, have never found myself enamoured by exception handling. It has its conveniences but you may well find many old school programmers find themselves content without it.
Initial things I feel a bit puzzled about with "Go" is the difference in argument handling between Print and Println, the use of a leading capital to distinguish between private and public routines (not all languages have capitals - unicode support is great until you smack foreigners in the mouth with capital letter requirements), I'm sure I'll think of more.
In my opinion, exceptions are absolutely, positively critical in a modern imparative programming language.
There are two ways of handling an error; exceptions, or explicit return code processing.
Typically return code processing is done for errors that are likely to be encountered and should be handled appropriately. Exceptions are used to deal with unusual unexpected events. Of course either method of error handling can be used for whatever purpose suits the programmer.
To say that one method of error handling is superior or correct or even required over the other is a little naive.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the right to be anonymous is more important than knowing who said what. You just know that the politicians put this law in place so that they could harass or politically destroy those who would speak against them. It's a "strategic *law* against public participation".
I've been thinking about this lately. Been watching too many dramas where a criminal wants to "face his accuser".
Saying something that the established power base does not want to be heard has consequences. Revealing one's identity can result in injury or death. This is why so many criminals never face justice - what witness wants to have a gang destroy their lives? What individual wants to be targeted by a main political party with threat of police action or secret retribution?
Anonymity is a fundamental part of freedom of speech. Without it there can be no true free speech.
Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.
Pretty much.
Australian laws are largely created to criminalise anybody, anytime. You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.
If you think you haven't committed any crimes today you'll have a retrospective law applied to you in the future. Never fear, nobody gets away!
This is more anti American propaganda and I'm entirely against it.
I'm guessing you've never actually travelled outside your own borders; or if you have, never alone.
There's a saying, better to be thought of as stupid than open your mouth and confirm it... if you don't like stereotypes about USA citizens then you're far better off not confirming them.
Does anyone really want to go to Antarctica? It is a cold, harsh environment that will isolate you from your family, friends, and civilized comforts.
You're asking the wrong crowd. A number of slashdotters would be quite happy in isolation from family, friends, bars, pubs, or any social interaction.
Seriously, have you been outside of your country at all?
I'm a foreigner.
You live in society, you follow society's stupid rules.
Not in London you don't. You throw your garbage anywhere. You park and block people in anytime. You never cover your mouth when you cough, even in crowded metropolitan transport. You cut in line, and start a fight if someone asks you to go to the back of the line. You listen to your leaky cheap Apple headphones as loudly as possible so that everyone in the carriage knows you like Eminem. Oh, and you steal from grocery stores, particularly if it's a crowded New Year's Eve and you and your gang of mates know full well no one can stop you.
If you're Islamic, you get to wear a full head veil and only show your eyes, even in a bank (I've seen this in Ealing)! If you're Sikh you're legally permitted to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
If you're poor, you get to burgle property, threaten the lives of those inside, and watch the owner go to jail when he tries to protect himself.
I could go on...
They'd need to pay me at least double to ever put up with that again.
Of course, you could just engineer a mostly reliable system, and when it's your week to be on call, ignore the phone.
Should you be unlucky enough to be the one on call when the system fails, you lose your job. Oh well, move on!
For as many student that go through the school are students not bred into the Microsoft culture and not dependent on their software to be productive.
Gladiators were taught to fight with heavy wooden swords so that the real sword would be easier to handle.
Surely it is better to give students crippled operating systems such as Vista so that their introduction to real world technology is a pleasant one? Rather than go the other way around?
The simple fact is that ignoring robots.txt is effectively evil, regardless of the intent. It's not like robots.txt is some new innovation...
Since when did Microsoft feel existing standards were something to honour? How many times have its browsers changed behaviour? Re-defined entrenched URL standards (you cannot specify username/password in an Internet Explorer URL but this is a legal standard form of URL)?
It stands to reason Microsoft would take no notice of anything your website has to say.
Unless.. of course.. Microsoft define a certificate type that can sign your Microsoft-specific format exception list after payment on an annual licensing basis..
Oh hey, another Microsoft example: Vista! After all, why assume someone upgrading their operating system might expect the same if not better!
PS see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/834489
He assumes you actually have a functional society before you start wondering about self-esteem and stuff.
Clearly he never witnessed a mass following of gangs and their dedication to rap lyrics.
but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random
Show me a cop that doesn't speed when the blues and twos are off. Show me a cop that indicates when approaching a t-intersection. Cops can't drive. And they don't do spot checks, only pulling over someone involved in a burglary or have their insurance or registration expired.
Most Londoners can't drive. They dive between lanes, slam their brakes on in the middle of motorways, pull out and block traffic at will.
There's only one attitude in London. "F%$# you!"
Microsoft is in the business of making money and licensing of its wares is just part of the game.
Creating a software product and selling it is fair enough. Creating a standard, expecting everyone to use it, then charging a license fee for it is _evil_.
That's like the power company deciding to sell you power. Then charging you license fees for installing power sockets in your home that conform to the standard.
If I understand correctly
If you are not interested in your own privacy why add to this debate? Clearly you never checked out what options there were for controlling 3rd-party access to your details, you didn't care then and you don't care now.
Except you can set your privacy settings to not let the apps share anything
WRONG! They removed the option to prevent 3rd-party apps from seeing your personal information.
I'm deactivating my facebook accounts.
Spelled is the verb meaning to spell
..only in the United States of America where English isn't a first language.
Mexicans can't drive
Hey, you made that assumption, not me. You wouldn't pick an actual racial stereotype because you're afraid of being politically correct. I'm just pointing out that people with a particular gene is just as likely to behave differently from anybody else that shares a particular genetic difference.
I'm just having a go at all those "we're all the same" tyrants who ought to be attacking anyone who considers Down Syndrome or any other genetic difference as something politically incorrect to notice or talk about in an adult manner!
We got him to do the hassling as he couldn't sense the irritation of the people he was calling.
Why? Because he had "mild Aspergers"? That's so stereotypical! Imagine if you began to think certain racial stereotypes were dominant in certain industries because of certain stereotypical behavioural types?
BTW, I am really amused that Firefox tells you "spelled" is spelt correctly.
We'd be f**ked, as a species.
Too late!
This is, of course, bullshit. Being aware that people are assigned to different races, and treated differently because of this, is not racism, it's the first step in getting rid of racism. Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, is just a way of pretending that racism doesn't exist, and so will inevitably perpetuate it.
Picking and choosing what racism is leads to situations whereby innocent people are attacked, lose their jobs, and are branded pariahs because of a popularist opinion. Intent doesn't matter.
Let's consider the act of children. Often they tease one another. They tease about your funny-sounding last name. They tease about your father's profession. They tease about your weight or lack of weight. They tease about your private body parts or the way you move. They tease about your intelligence or lack thereof. They tease about your hair style. They tease about your skin colour (even when you're burnt or pale).
Now let's consider the act of adults. They can tease about stupidity. They can tease about money. They can tease about weight. They can tease about accents and behaviour. They can tease about looks. They can tease about names. Except if that person is from a racial background that refuses to accept criticism.
So what's the resulting behaviour? Avoid certain races in the workplace. They might sue you for racism regardless of the intent. Avoid certain races in the street. They might attack you then claim you incited racial hatred.
At the end of the day anybody who says that one person is entitled to being treated differently to another on the base of race is a racist.
There comes a time when society as a whole should become sick of popularist definitions of racism and just embrace the title.
It is morally reprehensible to vote racist.
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat
Clearly your definition of racism is different from mine. I view racism as any act that distinguishes somebody on their race. By that definition I would say nearly all democrats are "racist" as they use race as one of their election platforms (a truly non-racist party would not need to promote equality legislation that distinguishes race as a factor). Neither would they feel the need to denigrate anyone in opposition to their candidate as "morally reprehensible racists". The fact is that if both Republicans and Democrats put up candidates of identical race there would still be votes for both. It is clear that Democrats, therefore, are an extremely racist party by any definition.
As a foreign viewer of the American presidential race I was astounded to the extent that self-promotion based on race was a factor.
I think exceptions _are_ fundamentally superior over error codes, and I am quite curious about why the designers decided not to put them in Go.
Have a look at the Go Language FAQ. It states very clearly why exceptions were not added to Go. It also states the design goals of the language.
Have you ever considered, from an assembly language perspective, what exception processing looks like? How handling of multiple stack frames might take place? Have you ever implemented your own exception handling methodology in C? If not then demanding exceptions from all languages illustrates naivety.
If you want languages that provide safety then you must sacrifice speed.
I, personally, have never found myself enamoured by exception handling. It has its conveniences but you may well find many old school programmers find themselves content without it.
Initial things I feel a bit puzzled about with "Go" is the difference in argument handling between Print and Println, the use of a leading capital to distinguish between private and public routines (not all languages have capitals - unicode support is great until you smack foreigners in the mouth with capital letter requirements), I'm sure I'll think of more.
Actually, I think there are more people here from outside of the US (mainly Europe) than you think. I think it's closer to a 50-50 ratio.
Well so far I've been modded down and up so that I'm back to my original posting score. I guess this will illustrate where the modders are from!
In my opinion, exceptions are absolutely, positively critical in a modern imparative programming language.
There are two ways of handling an error; exceptions, or explicit return code processing.
Typically return code processing is done for errors that are likely to be encountered and should be handled appropriately. Exceptions are used to deal with unusual unexpected events. Of course either method of error handling can be used for whatever purpose suits the programmer.
To say that one method of error handling is superior or correct or even required over the other is a little naive.
Please let me know from what nationality a poster to Slashdot actually believes his is the only one represented on this website..