There are only 2 (two) ways to be arrested by a foreign country: (1) visiting that country or (2) being in a country that will extradite you for the crime.
Actually there is a 3rd (third) way: visit some other country that may cooperate with the one in question.
How about making it simpler to configure?
on
Marketing Mozilla
·
· Score: 1
about:config is a monstrosity.
How about organizing the settings in a reasonable structure and adding a usable online help that describes them?
> And noone can argue with them, because--bottom line--Israel has nukes. > This is the lesson that developing nations around the world have learned. > Noone fucks with you once you have nukes.
Correction: No-one fucks with you once you have nukes and state that you will use them if threatened.
It's probably because AVG is a free suite. I think it's pretty common practice when companies like CR or the PC mags test any software, they only compare the versions you have to pay for
Avast! is free, which was prominently shown on the review page.
and are usually closed-source.
Show me one decent open source antivirus for Windows.
Cops bring up surreptitious charges and laws fairly often, or will try to convince you in a similar manner that you don't have any rights. I have friends that are cops, good cops, that have told me this.
Just a thought,
Ask your friends what are they doing to stop this phenomenon.
If they know about other cops abusing their power but don't do all in their power to sop it, they aren't really good cops.
> Some people take the extreme; and intentionally leave their AP wide open. > Plausible deniability then ensues. you can't be held responsible if you, by policy, don't protect your net connection. > They can't prove it was you who 'did the bad thing'. the worst they can do is call you a bad sysadmin
That's the theory.
In practice, "they" label you a terrorist, ship you off to gitmo and screw you so bad you wish you were never born. Just to make a point. Because "they" can.
> If you are being sued, and a lawyer protects you from the lawsuit, > and the lawyer gets his or her fees paid for having accomplished something good, > why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.
I don't know the OP's reasons for resenting the lawyer's fees but I can give you mine.
In no particular order:
1) The compensation is disproportionate
A lot of lawyers in such cases are not paid by the hour but rather get a (large) cut of the fine/settlement/etc amount. We, regular people who get paid for actual work, feel that this amounts to robbery or, at best, to "justice tax" collected by individuals.
Consider, for example, physicians, who regularly "accomplishes something good" and yet their pay is usually correlated to the amount (or difficulty) of their work. Why is a lawyer better than somebody who saves your life or helps maintain its quality?
2) The lawyers are not "good"
Most lawyers are not out to "accomplish something good". They usually don't care whether their client is right or wrong, good or bad, guilty or innocent. They play at the "law" game and the one that plays better - wins (money, prestige, etc. which eventually translate to money). The fact that this "game" can ruin other people's lives is an irrelevant side effect.
3a) The lawyers perpetuate the "justice for money" system
No matter how you look at it, we don't have a justice system. We only have a legal system, in which the thickness of your wallet determines the quality of the justice that you can afford. It does not matter if you are right or wrong if the other party can outspend you. The framework of laws is so intricate, complex and sometimes contradictory to the point of being completely incomprehensible to a lay person, and lawyers (and politicians) do their best to keep it that way.
3b) The system works by ensuring that we can be easily victimized
Imagine yourself as a 5 years old orphan child living in a city full of drunk gangsters, drug-lords and corrupt policemen. As long as keep out of sight and don't interfere with their business, they might leave you alone but if one of them decides that you're a nuisance, you're screwed and nobody can (or even wants to) help you.
Not a pretty feeling, right?
Now give these people names. Call them "Sony", "RIAA", "Microsoft", etc. The fact is that corporations, or just wealthy individuals, can often ruin you just by suing. And there's nothing to do against it because everything is legal and proper. Well, the society (the government) is supposed to protect the weaker members from predators but it doesn't because it is actually run by them (and before you ask - no, it doesn't really matter whether you vote for Kang or for Kodos).
Let's say I had the ability to pester MIS to get me a Core 2 Duo machine. Should I?
What would my argument be? It runs Half-life n% faster than an FX62? Whoop-dee-do!
I would really like to see performance comparisons geared towards software developers.
The type of benchmark that I would consider relevant is one that would measure the time it would take to build a large C++ application in, say, Visual Studio (on Windows) or GCC (on Linux et al) versus a comparably priced Pentium D machine.
Even better, run a couple of VMs on the machine, each one doing a task similar to the above (in parallel) and tell me how much "dead" time the Core 2 will save me in that scenario.
> Of course you have to consider the flip side. > If the loser must pay, the little guy may not bring a legitimate complaint > to court for fear of going bankrupt with the court costs if he loses...
Strawman.
In a reasonable "loser pays" system, the amount that the loser pays is set by the court, usually taking into consideration the loser's financial abilities, whether the lawsuit was malicious, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there is a 3rd (third) way: visit some other country that may cooperate with the one in question.
about:config is a monstrosity.
How about organizing the settings in a reasonable structure and adding a usable online help that describes them?
> As far as I know every Office document contains its undo history by default.
No, it doesn't.
You are probably confusing the undo history with the "track changes" feature, a somewhat different beast (and also off by default).
> And noone can argue with them, because--bottom line--Israel has nukes.
> This is the lesson that developing nations around the world have learned.
> Noone fucks with you once you have nukes.
Correction: No-one fucks with you once you have nukes and state that you will use them if threatened.
Remember, Israel had nukes in 1973.
Avast! is free, which was prominently shown on the review page.
Show me one decent open source antivirus for Windows.
Not entirely.
Here are the scores:
BitDefender Standard - 87
Zone Labs ZoneAlarm Antivirus - 85
Kaspersky Labs Anti-Virus Personal - 82
Norton Antivirus - 80
Norton Antivirus for Macintosh - 80
McAfee ViruScan - 77
Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security - 75
Alwil Avast! Antivirus - 68
F-Secure Anti-Virus - 66
Panda Software Titanium AV - 64
CA/eTrust EZ Antivirus - 57
PC Tools AntiVirus - 41
However, I don't have a lot of faith in CR's ability to rank high tech items.
> You don't think like a terrorist
And you do, Mr. Houghi?
Hmmm...
How many of these sites actually changed the world ?
Mod parent up!
The Canadian government is as idiotically paranoid as their Southern neighbour.
Truly a sad day.
>> in my jurisdiction (Canada), the typical payout is around $1000 for every day you are unjustly incarcerated
> So in the US, we should get $666?
How hard is it to ask Google to do the conversion?
(not to mention that the cost of living is usually conveniently ignored).
Just a thought,
Ask your friends what are they doing to stop this phenomenon.
If they know about other cops abusing their power but don't do all in their power to sop it, they aren't really good cops.
Can anyone provide a list?
The gravest threat to CDs in my household comes in diapers.
Gaak!
i e_Gras_(Asimov)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A2t%C3%A9_de_Fo
Also check out Pâté de Foie Gras
we hardly knew ye.
Ray Beckerman wrote:
> Lumping all lawyers together does a disservice to the good guys, and is a favor to the bad guys.
Can you point to the exact location in my post that lumped all lawyers together?
> What do you do for a living?
Why do you feel that it is important, or even relevant, to the discussion?
How does my day job affect the validity of the points I raised in my post?
> Some people take the extreme; and intentionally leave their AP wide open.
> Plausible deniability then ensues. you can't be held responsible if you, by policy, don't protect your net connection.
> They can't prove it was you who 'did the bad thing'. the worst they can do is call you a bad sysadmin
That's the theory.
In practice, "they" label you a terrorist, ship you off to gitmo and screw you so bad you wish you were never born.
Just to make a point. Because "they" can.
> If you are being sued, and a lawyer protects you from the lawsuit,
> and the lawyer gets his or her fees paid for having accomplished something good,
> why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.
I don't know the OP's reasons for resenting the lawyer's fees but I can give you mine.
In no particular order:
1) The compensation is disproportionate
A lot of lawyers in such cases are not paid by the hour but rather get a (large) cut of the fine/settlement/etc amount.
We, regular people who get paid for actual work, feel that this amounts to robbery or, at best, to "justice tax" collected by individuals.
Consider, for example, physicians, who regularly "accomplishes something good" and yet their pay is usually correlated to the amount (or difficulty) of their work. Why is a lawyer better than somebody who saves your life or helps maintain its quality?
2) The lawyers are not "good"
Most lawyers are not out to "accomplish something good". They usually don't care whether their client is right or wrong, good or bad, guilty or innocent. They play at the "law" game and the one that plays better - wins (money, prestige, etc. which eventually translate to money). The fact that this "game" can ruin other people's lives is an irrelevant side effect.
3a) The lawyers perpetuate the "justice for money" system
No matter how you look at it, we don't have a justice system. We only have a legal system, in which the thickness of your wallet determines the quality of the justice that you can afford. It does not matter if you are right or wrong if the other party can outspend you. The framework of laws is so intricate, complex and sometimes contradictory to the point of being completely incomprehensible to a lay person, and lawyers (and politicians) do their best to keep it that way.
3b) The system works by ensuring that we can be easily victimized
Imagine yourself as a 5 years old orphan child living in a city full of drunk gangsters, drug-lords and corrupt policemen.
As long as keep out of sight and don't interfere with their business, they might leave you alone but if one of them decides that you're a nuisance, you're screwed and nobody can (or even wants to) help you.
Not a pretty feeling, right?
Now give these people names. Call them "Sony", "RIAA", "Microsoft", etc. The fact is that corporations, or just wealthy individuals, can often ruin you just by suing. And there's nothing to do against it because everything is legal and proper.
Well, the society (the government) is supposed to protect the weaker members from predators but it doesn't because it is actually run by them (and before you ask - no, it doesn't really matter whether you vote for Kang or for Kodos).
There is more but it's late and I'm tired.
Let's say I had the ability to pester MIS to get me a Core 2 Duo machine. Should I?
What would my argument be? It runs Half-life n% faster than an FX62? Whoop-dee-do!
I would really like to see performance comparisons geared towards software developers.
The type of benchmark that I would consider relevant is one that would measure the time it would take to build a large C++ application in, say, Visual Studio (on Windows) or GCC (on Linux et al) versus a comparably priced Pentium D machine.
Even better, run a couple of VMs on the machine, each one doing a task similar to the above (in parallel) and tell me how much "dead" time the Core 2 will save me in that scenario.
> Of course you have to consider the flip side.
> If the loser must pay, the little guy may not bring a legitimate complaint
> to court for fear of going bankrupt with the court costs if he loses...
Strawman.
In a reasonable "loser pays" system, the amount that the loser pays is set by the court, usually taking into consideration the loser's financial abilities, whether the lawsuit was malicious, etc.
> Studying French has probably made me less tolerant of the American spellings,
> but it also taught me how to spell manoeuvre (or is that manoeuvre?)
That's a load of manoeuvre.
> [...] the Christian church has always grown the fastest when it has been under the greatest persecution.
Strange, I always thought that the Christian church has grown the fastest when it was doing the persecution.