This coming from an organization that has refused to support the growth of nuclear power as a means of providing for our electrical needs. Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.
If I were a Greenpeace executive, instead of wasting my time with this crap, I'd order half a dozen Tesla roadsters to serve as company/lobbyist cars and be hitting the road right now to promote companies like Tesla as the alternative to bailing out gas guzzler manufacturers.
I predict that it'll be a useful tool for stopping severe cyber bullying. While I do find the ramifications troubling in some respects, the ruling here seems to be specifically on the grounds that her goal for violating the ToS was to commit a crime. The big problem with this ruling is that there are a lot of crimes that can be committed when we don't mean them to be, such as copyright infringement (fair use ain't always obvious).
This case probably has a 50/50 chance of being overturned in appeals, so I wouldn't worry about it since this is a stretch of the Computer Fraud Act and appeals courts tend to be more conservative in their tolerance of twisted prosecutorial language.
I have it on my desk next to me for when I have to do JavaScript by hand. It's one of the only programming books that I've bought where several months after the fact I still consider it money well spent.
That someone would actually be modded down because they happen to think that Linux isn't all that as a desktop. That sort of thing is why I think that any moderation system that allows users to mod down rather than only up is broken.
The reason that I never really seriously used Linux on my PC laptop was that Ubuntu was sluggish, even with the newest ATI drivers, compared to Windows. Maybe people have good experience with nVidia drivers there, but Windows is a lot more usable as a desktop for me on the performance side of things. Granted, my main computer is a MacBook Pro running Leopard, but I can't imagine putting Linux back on my old PC laptop for when I need to use it.
In 2001, my alma mater had 2 45mbps lines for the university and they were consistently hammered by the students doing file sharing. It got to the point that some people in the CS department joked that banging out packets across tin-cans-on-strings would be faster than using the campus network when classes were generally over for the day.
Then, the university instituted packet shapers across the network and it got usable again. Usable to the point where I didn't feel like I was on a 14.4k modem again.
If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.
Is that if they have enough evidence to make you get shut off the net, they have enough evidence to sue you. Stop passing the buck and file a lawsuit, jackasses.
Since it's basically just MacOS X under the hood. Apple would probably just have to install most of the OSX desktop APIs and provide some tweaks to the app launcher interface that the iPhone uses. However, I think the biggest incentive for them to not do this would be the perception that their product doesn't multitask which would be a turn off to some people.
Rubbish. Every other industry can survive and thrive with the existance of used goods. On top of that, taking a cut of the sales is a major violation of our property rights.
Holder is in favor of censorship, massive gun control, a drug war hawk... and you *ahem* hoped for change from Obama. How is this any different than Gonzalez, Ashcroft or Reno, except maybe a squeamishness about torture?
Go ahead, moderate me down, but you know I'm right. For anyone who believed that things would change, Holder's nomination is basically total effing treason to that.
Seriously, I will be surprised if we don't trade Gitmo and secret CIA prisons for a second round of Waco and Ruby Ridge if this is the start that Obama is off on with his DoJ appointments.
The reason I chose second degree murder is that it might be difficult for a prosecutor to show that at every step of the way, she planned for this girl to die. However, they could certainly make a case for the final comments which were about how worthless, ugly, etc. she was and how she should basically off herself could be reasonably construed as Drew going off the deep end and pushing her to commit suicide now.
On the one hand, the federal case is rubbish. Intentionally inflicting emotional distress is so subjective of an offense as to be unconstitutional (judges have used vagueness as a reason to strike down statutes). This case is now clearly entirely one of catharsis for the community and a career opportunity for ambitious prosecutors.
Yet, I think there can be a case under state law that Lori Drew murdered Megan Meier. I looked it up before, and remember seeing that it said that if you knowingly cause someone to be killed, then you are guilty of murder, and that's a good definition of what Drew did here. With basically demonic-level of malice of forethought, prodded and goaded this girl into exposing herself emotionally to a fictitious lover, knowing full-well that she had some severe issues with depression, and then she stabbed the girl and butterflied the wound.
It's no wonder why Meier committed suicide. On some level, Drew knew what she was doing. It's already been established in previous reports that she knew all about this girl's psychological problems, and her reported behavior is that of a true predator. She can't claim innocence like "gee golly, I didn't know she very well might kill herself if I set her up for that much anguish and suggested to her that the world might be better off with out her (which Drew did suggest to her)."
Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide.
Presidents, President Elects and other high profile people are going to draw a far greater number of wackos than a private citizen vainly clinging to their fifteen minutes of fame.
You mean like all of the wackos that came out believing that Obama was the second coming of Jesus? The reason I'm sympathetic to his security concerns is that I stopped supporting Obama because of all of the wild-eyed zealots the man was attracting to him. Not that I supported McCain, who had some lunies of his own, but Obama clearly had a lot more people willing to take any attack on him as deeply personal, as was shown when he was able to rally his supporters to shut down several radio stations that had Stanley Kurtz discussing Obama.
Oh and that reference to the guy who called for Joe to be murdered? Not too hard to find.
The President-Elect has a modern day Praetorian Guard protecting him. It would take either a professional team of assassins, or a very, very lucky suicide bomber/shooter to get anywhere near him. Joe the Plumber? Not so much.
Joe what's his name can't help the fact that McCain made him into a working class hero. He also can't help the fact that a number of people on the left wanted to destroy him for having the audacity to ask a hard, serious economic question of Obama that made Obama look bad. One radio host even called for him to be murdered.
So yeah, I'd say that he had more practical security precautions than a man who had the Secret Service protecting him and his immediate family.
The only thing ISPs care about by default is that their users aren't abusing access to the Internet through means like taking up too much bandwidth or doing illegal things. They don't care whether you spend your day on Slashdot or Stormfront. If left up to their own devices, which they have been so far, they let their users go wherever they want until the law says otherwise.
What makes you think that the government is more likely to come in and say that they must do this, rather than come in and tell them they have to block access to certain sites and opinions? There's already precedent for the latter, but not the former, in many Western states.
Corporations don't pass expenses on to their customers. Period.
Yes, they do. Anything that factors into the cost of doing business leading to the production of a good and/or provision of a service is part of the base cost of that product or service. If you were to add a 50% tax on the use of plastic and silicon, you would increase the cost of all plastic and silicon-based products relative to the amount of plastic and silicon in them. The company would then have to raise the cost to make the same profit or go out of business. Since none of its competitors could avoid this increase because it's a tax, everyone would have to raise costs or go out of business. The result is that the government would have just dramatically increase the cost of consumer goods.
Seriously, how can you even pretend to stand there all high and mighty like you know economics, when you can't grasp a concept that is that simple? I'm not very educated in economics, myself, but at least I understand basic facts about economics like the principle that if you impose a universal burden on manufacturers, you will create a cost that must be accounted for, that the market cannot compete away.
The law is very rigid today. To start an organization, you have to jump through a lot of hoops and hurdles to be in compliance with everything from labor practices, to filing the right corporate status, to paying the right taxes. It would be a lot easier for society to find creative ways to reorganized itself if there were no corporate taxes.
Besides, corporate taxes are asinine. Not only are the costs transferred to the public in the form of higher costs and lost employment opportunities, most corporations have successfully figured out how to avoid paying most taxes anyway. It'd be better to just cut our losses, tighten up spending, and tax only individuals.
Have they ever been a team lead? I understand not moving into management proper, but if they are a 20 year veteran and have never been a team lead, chances are they've never really operated on a very high, senior level of work expectation unless they're in a niche field. If they're a general purpose software engineer, and have never--not once--taken a position where they were directing other engineers, chances are they were never trusted by their employers to operate as a true senior engineer.
Before anyone blasts me here, I have never known a single senior engineer with 20 some years of experience who has been a good employee worth having and has never had a few people they regularly tasked who had little experience. They weren't managers, but they were responsible for giving tasking and work to junior employees.
Then I am owed several busty beauties, a kick ass giant mecha, strange powers that manifested first a puberty and the ability to defy the laws of physics when I fight people.
I saw that in a cartoon and think real life should reflect that. It's not fair that my life is bound by reality and not the rules of anime.
The point here is that it really does make good use of security through obscurity here. By being a product that is sold only to customers that work in classified environments, it has an inherent advantage in that almost no one outside of a small customer base will have access to poke at it. Put simply, the criminal element has hitherto had almost 0 chance of getting a chance to go to town on it.
It's not like the military really needs to replace all of its important infrastructure since it already has SIPRNet and JWICS which shield its sensitive systems from most hackers because they're not even on the public Internet anymore.
If this 68 year old man knew that the federal government would throw his treasonous ass to the wolves in the worst federal maximum security prison it could find, he might be inclined to turn down his handlers. Maybe if he knew that his likely cellmate was a member of MS-13 instead of your typical white collar criminal, he might be inclined to weigh the costs a little better.
I can already predict that some snarky asshole is going to come along and say "long, protracted wars like Iraq." The answer is no. Try the sort of wars where both parties are actually on a generally equal footing, where hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of soldiers end up dead. One of the reasons that governments like the Chinese government don't risk war with us is that they know that with our currently superior equipped and trained military, we can inflict devastating and likely very disproportionate casualties on them. If they are successful at industrial espionage, they close the gap there between our respective militaries and can come much closer to going toe-to-toe with our troops any day of the week.
Being generally anti-war, I tend to be of the opinion that Roosevelt was right when he said we should walk softly and carry a big stick. That big stick isn't so intimidating when you let your enemy have one of his very own modeled on yours.
Slashdot Mirror
This coming from an organization that has refused to support the growth of nuclear power as a means of providing for our electrical needs. Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.
If I were a Greenpeace executive, instead of wasting my time with this crap, I'd order half a dozen Tesla roadsters to serve as company/lobbyist cars and be hitting the road right now to promote companies like Tesla as the alternative to bailing out gas guzzler manufacturers.
I predict that it'll be a useful tool for stopping severe cyber bullying. While I do find the ramifications troubling in some respects, the ruling here seems to be specifically on the grounds that her goal for violating the ToS was to commit a crime. The big problem with this ruling is that there are a lot of crimes that can be committed when we don't mean them to be, such as copyright infringement (fair use ain't always obvious).
This case probably has a 50/50 chance of being overturned in appeals, so I wouldn't worry about it since this is a stretch of the Computer Fraud Act and appeals courts tend to be more conservative in their tolerance of twisted prosecutorial language.
I have it on my desk next to me for when I have to do JavaScript by hand. It's one of the only programming books that I've bought where several months after the fact I still consider it money well spent.
That someone would actually be modded down because they happen to think that Linux isn't all that as a desktop. That sort of thing is why I think that any moderation system that allows users to mod down rather than only up is broken.
The reason that I never really seriously used Linux on my PC laptop was that Ubuntu was sluggish, even with the newest ATI drivers, compared to Windows. Maybe people have good experience with nVidia drivers there, but Windows is a lot more usable as a desktop for me on the performance side of things. Granted, my main computer is a MacBook Pro running Leopard, but I can't imagine putting Linux back on my old PC laptop for when I need to use it.
We paid $125/semester. Granted, our school also didn't feel the need to keep up with the Jones WRT bandwidth.
In 2001, my alma mater had 2 45mbps lines for the university and they were consistently hammered by the students doing file sharing. It got to the point that some people in the CS department joked that banging out packets across tin-cans-on-strings would be faster than using the campus network when classes were generally over for the day.
Then, the university instituted packet shapers across the network and it got usable again. Usable to the point where I didn't feel like I was on a 14.4k modem again.
If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.
Is that if they have enough evidence to make you get shut off the net, they have enough evidence to sue you. Stop passing the buck and file a lawsuit, jackasses.
Since it's basically just MacOS X under the hood. Apple would probably just have to install most of the OSX desktop APIs and provide some tweaks to the app launcher interface that the iPhone uses. However, I think the biggest incentive for them to not do this would be the perception that their product doesn't multitask which would be a turn off to some people.
Rubbish. Every other industry can survive and thrive with the existance of used goods. On top of that, taking a cut of the sales is a major violation of our property rights.
Holder is in favor of censorship, massive gun control, a drug war hawk... and you *ahem* hoped for change from Obama. How is this any different than Gonzalez, Ashcroft or Reno, except maybe a squeamishness about torture?
Go ahead, moderate me down, but you know I'm right. For anyone who believed that things would change, Holder's nomination is basically total effing treason to that.
Seriously, I will be surprised if we don't trade Gitmo and secret CIA prisons for a second round of Waco and Ruby Ridge if this is the start that Obama is off on with his DoJ appointments.
"It's just a God-damned piece of paper" between them and doing anything they want...
The reason I chose second degree murder is that it might be difficult for a prosecutor to show that at every step of the way, she planned for this girl to die. However, they could certainly make a case for the final comments which were about how worthless, ugly, etc. she was and how she should basically off herself could be reasonably construed as Drew going off the deep end and pushing her to commit suicide now.
On the one hand, the federal case is rubbish. Intentionally inflicting emotional distress is so subjective of an offense as to be unconstitutional (judges have used vagueness as a reason to strike down statutes). This case is now clearly entirely one of catharsis for the community and a career opportunity for ambitious prosecutors.
Yet, I think there can be a case under state law that Lori Drew murdered Megan Meier. I looked it up before, and remember seeing that it said that if you knowingly cause someone to be killed, then you are guilty of murder, and that's a good definition of what Drew did here. With basically demonic-level of malice of forethought, prodded and goaded this girl into exposing herself emotionally to a fictitious lover, knowing full-well that she had some severe issues with depression, and then she stabbed the girl and butterflied the wound.
It's no wonder why Meier committed suicide. On some level, Drew knew what she was doing. It's already been established in previous reports that she knew all about this girl's psychological problems, and her reported behavior is that of a true predator. She can't claim innocence like "gee golly, I didn't know she very well might kill herself if I set her up for that much anguish and suggested to her that the world might be better off with out her (which Drew did suggest to her)."
Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide.
You mean like all of the wackos that came out believing that Obama was the second coming of Jesus? The reason I'm sympathetic to his security concerns is that I stopped supporting Obama because of all of the wild-eyed zealots the man was attracting to him. Not that I supported McCain, who had some lunies of his own, but Obama clearly had a lot more people willing to take any attack on him as deeply personal, as was shown when he was able to rally his supporters to shut down several radio stations that had Stanley Kurtz discussing Obama.
Oh and that reference to the guy who called for Joe to be murdered? Not too hard to find.
The President-Elect has a modern day Praetorian Guard protecting him. It would take either a professional team of assassins, or a very, very lucky suicide bomber/shooter to get anywhere near him. Joe the Plumber? Not so much.
Joe what's his name can't help the fact that McCain made him into a working class hero. He also can't help the fact that a number of people on the left wanted to destroy him for having the audacity to ask a hard, serious economic question of Obama that made Obama look bad. One radio host even called for him to be murdered.
So yeah, I'd say that he had more practical security precautions than a man who had the Secret Service protecting him and his immediate family.
The only thing ISPs care about by default is that their users aren't abusing access to the Internet through means like taking up too much bandwidth or doing illegal things. They don't care whether you spend your day on Slashdot or Stormfront. If left up to their own devices, which they have been so far, they let their users go wherever they want until the law says otherwise. What makes you think that the government is more likely to come in and say that they must do this, rather than come in and tell them they have to block access to certain sites and opinions? There's already precedent for the latter, but not the former, in many Western states.
Yes, they do. Anything that factors into the cost of doing business leading to the production of a good and/or provision of a service is part of the base cost of that product or service. If you were to add a 50% tax on the use of plastic and silicon, you would increase the cost of all plastic and silicon-based products relative to the amount of plastic and silicon in them. The company would then have to raise the cost to make the same profit or go out of business. Since none of its competitors could avoid this increase because it's a tax, everyone would have to raise costs or go out of business. The result is that the government would have just dramatically increase the cost of consumer goods.
Seriously, how can you even pretend to stand there all high and mighty like you know economics, when you can't grasp a concept that is that simple? I'm not very educated in economics, myself, but at least I understand basic facts about economics like the principle that if you impose a universal burden on manufacturers, you will create a cost that must be accounted for, that the market cannot compete away.
The law is very rigid today. To start an organization, you have to jump through a lot of hoops and hurdles to be in compliance with everything from labor practices, to filing the right corporate status, to paying the right taxes. It would be a lot easier for society to find creative ways to reorganized itself if there were no corporate taxes.
Besides, corporate taxes are asinine. Not only are the costs transferred to the public in the form of higher costs and lost employment opportunities, most corporations have successfully figured out how to avoid paying most taxes anyway. It'd be better to just cut our losses, tighten up spending, and tax only individuals.
Have they ever been a team lead? I understand not moving into management proper, but if they are a 20 year veteran and have never been a team lead, chances are they've never really operated on a very high, senior level of work expectation unless they're in a niche field. If they're a general purpose software engineer, and have never--not once--taken a position where they were directing other engineers, chances are they were never trusted by their employers to operate as a true senior engineer.
Before anyone blasts me here, I have never known a single senior engineer with 20 some years of experience who has been a good employee worth having and has never had a few people they regularly tasked who had little experience. They weren't managers, but they were responsible for giving tasking and work to junior employees.
Then I am owed several busty beauties, a kick ass giant mecha, strange powers that manifested first a puberty and the ability to defy the laws of physics when I fight people.
I saw that in a cartoon and think real life should reflect that. It's not fair that my life is bound by reality and not the rules of anime.
The point here is that it really does make good use of security through obscurity here. By being a product that is sold only to customers that work in classified environments, it has an inherent advantage in that almost no one outside of a small customer base will have access to poke at it. Put simply, the criminal element has hitherto had almost 0 chance of getting a chance to go to town on it.
It's not like the military really needs to replace all of its important infrastructure since it already has SIPRNet and JWICS which shield its sensitive systems from most hackers because they're not even on the public Internet anymore.
If this 68 year old man knew that the federal government would throw his treasonous ass to the wolves in the worst federal maximum security prison it could find, he might be inclined to turn down his handlers. Maybe if he knew that his likely cellmate was a member of MS-13 instead of your typical white collar criminal, he might be inclined to weigh the costs a little better.
I can already predict that some snarky asshole is going to come along and say "long, protracted wars like Iraq." The answer is no. Try the sort of wars where both parties are actually on a generally equal footing, where hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of soldiers end up dead. One of the reasons that governments like the Chinese government don't risk war with us is that they know that with our currently superior equipped and trained military, we can inflict devastating and likely very disproportionate casualties on them. If they are successful at industrial espionage, they close the gap there between our respective militaries and can come much closer to going toe-to-toe with our troops any day of the week.
Being generally anti-war, I tend to be of the opinion that Roosevelt was right when he said we should walk softly and carry a big stick. That big stick isn't so intimidating when you let your enemy have one of his very own modeled on yours.