Hmm. You've gotten yourself hung up on two words, without knowing my political views or how I've voted in national votes.
If it helps any, I don't believe any old crap left wing Americans come out with, or indeed any old crap the politicians in my own country spew. The right-wing left-of-centre party in Government in the UK at the time also put out some wacky tale of WMD and I didn't believe them either.
No, merely requesting evidence. Shit, I'm still waiting to see the WMD that were promised back in 2003, forgive me if I don't believe offhand any old crap right wing Americans tell me.
No ifs, ands, or buts, this douche-bag has the blood of innocent people on his hands - and needlessly so. The people who leaked the information are traitors and should be treated as such. I honestly don't understand the mass ignorance of those willing to protect a negligent murderer; which is exactly what he is now.
Exactly who are the innocent people that have died as a result of this leak?
Precisely how did the people that leaked the information kill them?
What makes someone a traitor for demonstrating how their country fails to obey its own laws and fails to provide the freedoms its citizens expects?
Surely the murderers and traitors are the people killing innocent civilians, as documented and evidenced in the material being published? Or would you rather keep all that quiet, and let them get on with it?
These days we have countless lives lost and protracted military involvement because of irresponsible disclosure and reporting.
Oh. I see. Yes, you would rather hush up the misbehaviour of your own troops instead of admitting they're a bunch of racist predatory sadists that shouldn't have been allowed into the military in the first place, let alone put in positions of power over helpless people.
Responsible disclosure is absolutely not too much to ask for.
I think that reporting war crimes is the only responsible thing to do. If you don't like that, perhaps you should encourage the military not to commit them in the first place.
I've taken roundabouts in the UK without braking at all, when driving down roads with a national speed limit. On my normal commute there are roundabouts that I get grumpy about slowing down to 50 on.
The US demanded a lopsided extradition treaty, the fuckwits running the country agreed then the US abused their promises about the treaty to try and cover for their own incompetence.
Why wouldn't a new Prime Minister suggest to the guy allegedly running the US that his country were completely out of order on this one?
We are happy with neither. Where was this dog's compassion for the 270 people it murdered?
Which part of
had his conviction been overturned on appeal, which had every chance of happening
did you blithely choose to ignore? The evidence was heading pretty quickly towards the conviction being overturned.
In other words, there was doubt that he actually did murder those people. Why should he have compassion for people that he possibly didn't murder, but has served several years in jail for murdering?
Frankly I'm annoyed that he was given compassionate release instead of a full appeal. I want to know whether we've had the wrong man locked up for years. I don't think demonising him will give us the answers.
He was in the UK. He never left the UK. The fact that the computer was in America is frankly fucking irrelevant.
This is because if UK law makes it legal to hack computers, then US law is irrelevant. The US can not dictate what is legal in the UK (except as permitted by the fuckwit Labour politicians that signed stupid fucking treaties).
If UK law makes it illegal to hack computers then he broke UK law, and so he should be tried in the UK. Having been tried in the UK it would be wrong to permit trial in the US too.
There is thus no circumstance under which he should face trial in the US.
Try him in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act or let him get on with his life.
$15/month to access game demos? Sorry, you think people should pay to receive advertising?
How about Online pay me $15/month and I'll maybe allow some of my time to play a demo or two. After all, the only outcomes for me are - I play a game and it's shite, so I waste my time - I play a game and it's great, so I buy it
Either way I lose out (time or money) and Onlive have the chance of a sale they would otherwise have lost.
(Except of course, I wont be buying through Onlive, because I'll get a cheaper better gaming experience by buying the game from Steam/Amazon)
Don't lets even get started on the ability to preview games through the unofficial channels (i.e. piracy) or through rental services (e.g. I can play as many games as I like each month for a fixed cost, with the game discs sent through the posts to me by LoveFilm).
Lets put this in perspective: Metaboli charge approximately the same but give you access to their full catalogue of games at no extra cost, to play in full and not as a demo. Why on earth would I ever go to Onlive instead of Metaboli?
I'm not even hardcore twitch these days, and "full HD" would be a backwards step from my gaming experience for the past three years.
720p, with 150ms input to display latency, excessive bandwidth demands and a higher cost than just buying the games I want to play? Forgive me for being unconvinced.
The irony is that I'd love this service to become viable and effective. The Arena looks magnificent (although raises privacy concerns for things like in-game chat), the ability to play demos is desperately needed and if I could have the choice of playing the same game (purchased just once) via Onlive or through a local installation then I'd leap at it.
Incidentally, how much space do you need for your self-sufficient farm (that isn't self sufficient, as you accept aid from others from time to time)?
I only ask because my self-sufficient techno-industrial complex has a population density high enough to sustain 8 billion people on the planet and feed them all, without increasing the amount of farmland, destroying the rainforests or running out of water.
Utter bull. Your right to life for example. Without a government willing to protect it by enforcing punishments, pleading "I have a right to live" to the chap with a gun is utterly meaningless.
The right to live exists entirely irrespective of the ability to protect it.
If someone kills you, they have abridged your right to life. The failure of Government to prevent that curtailment of your rights does not negate the right; it merely means you were unable to exercise that right.
Rights exist. Protecting those rights typically requires a structured society, often resembling a Government, but the rights are there anyway.
where are all the jobs advertised in Physics, in Economics, in Pure Maths, in Film & Theatre Studies.
I have a degree in Accounting and Financial Analysis, neither of which is my job, Meanwhile none of the accountants I know have a degree in accounting.
Sure, study something vocational if you love it and want to do it for a living, but don't constrain people brcause very few occupations require a specific degree.
Designing, writing and integrating software packages has little to do with Computer Science. It does fall under the banner of IT and also Software Engineering.
Computer Scientists never have been the best software engineers and programmers. Few companies genuinely need computer science skills; it's not a vocational degree. It would be interesting to see how Pure Maths grads are doing..
Your main point on the outsourcing of software skills is sadly true though, and may lead to a skills shortage in a few years as the supply of people with a programming background dries up. Bad for the economy, great for those few of us with a strong credible track record
Choice and expression of religion is something I'm very comfortable with. Use of religion in public office I'm very much against. Use of religion as part of killing someone is murder.
As for announcing the decision to kill someone being political speech, that's also a terrible motive, and merely confirms my belief that this is state sponsored murder and fuck all to do with justice.
Killing him wont have made his victims feel any better at all, because they're fucking dead. And don't even consider raising his victims' families as interested parties. Murderers have families too.
Justice does not include letting the victim exact revenge.
No way to tell how many at all. Let's start at zero and wait for evidence before we go any further.
Or do you feel that the significant proportion of people executed in America that are later proven innocent of the crime for which they are killed is justified in some strange and twisted manner?
was there some wording or tone of the announcement that somehow offended you and you thought it was in poor taste?
Yeah. What the fuck was that bullshit about some 'god' type thing? How the hell is it remoteley legal for an elected politician to include his archaic superstitious beliefs in a decision to take someone's life.
That's not murder, that's religiously motivated murder, an abuse of office and should be illegal. Even in the US.
That's fine, but my point is that what you say is a matter of interpretation, and depends on where you draw the "murder" line. Because of that, "Do not murder" does not necessarily apply to capital punishment.
So calling the state forcibly putting someone to death 'murder' is a matter of interpretation, but 'thou shalt not kill' really means 'thou shalt not murder'?
Mistranslation or misinterpretation, methinks you're on dodgy dodgy ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. You've gotten yourself hung up on two words, without knowing my political views or how I've voted in national votes.
If it helps any, I don't believe any old crap left wing Americans come out with, or indeed any old crap the politicians in my own country spew. The right-wing left-of-centre party in Government in the UK at the time also put out some wacky tale of WMD and I didn't believe them either.
No, merely requesting evidence. Shit, I'm still waiting to see the WMD that were promised back in 2003, forgive me if I don't believe offhand any old crap right wing Americans tell me.
No ifs, ands, or buts, this douche-bag has the blood of innocent people on his hands - and needlessly so. The people who leaked the information are traitors and should be treated as such. I honestly don't understand the mass ignorance of those willing to protect a negligent murderer; which is exactly what he is now.
Exactly who are the innocent people that have died as a result of this leak?
Precisely how did the people that leaked the information kill them?
What makes someone a traitor for demonstrating how their country fails to obey its own laws and fails to provide the freedoms its citizens expects?
Surely the murderers and traitors are the people killing innocent civilians, as documented and evidenced in the material being published? Or would you rather keep all that quiet, and let them get on with it?
These days we have countless lives lost and protracted military involvement because of irresponsible disclosure and reporting.
Oh. I see. Yes, you would rather hush up the misbehaviour of your own troops instead of admitting they're a bunch of racist predatory sadists that shouldn't have been allowed into the military in the first place, let alone put in positions of power over helpless people.
Responsible disclosure is absolutely not too much to ask for.
I think that reporting war crimes is the only responsible thing to do. If you don't like that, perhaps you should encourage the military not to commit them in the first place.
I've taken roundabouts in the UK without braking at all, when driving down roads with a national speed limit. On my normal commute there are roundabouts that I get grumpy about slowing down to 50 on.
Learn to drive.
I already am, but thank you for thinking of me.
Possibly the man they arrested in early June? Perhaps. Maybe.
They already think they know who leaked the information, they just couldn't stop the data loss.
In fact, it bends over backwards to try to minimize civilian casualties, way past the point of endangering its own troops.
I was with you up until there. If you'd like references, do your own trawl through 90,000 communications.
The US demanded a lopsided extradition treaty, the fuckwits running the country agreed then the US abused their promises about the treaty to try and cover for their own incompetence.
Why wouldn't a new Prime Minister suggest to the guy allegedly running the US that his country were completely out of order on this one?
We are happy with neither. Where was this dog's compassion for the 270 people it murdered?
Which part of
had his conviction been overturned on appeal, which had every chance of happening
did you blithely choose to ignore? The evidence was heading pretty quickly towards the conviction being overturned.
In other words, there was doubt that he actually did murder those people. Why should he have compassion for people that he possibly didn't murder, but has served several years in jail for murdering?
Frankly I'm annoyed that he was given compassionate release instead of a full appeal. I want to know whether we've had the wrong man locked up for years. I don't think demonising him will give us the answers.
Over half of them (190) were US citizens.
See, it wasn't all bad.
He was in the UK. He never left the UK. The fact that the computer was in America is frankly fucking irrelevant.
This is because if UK law makes it legal to hack computers, then US law is irrelevant. The US can not dictate what is legal in the UK (except as permitted by the fuckwit Labour politicians that signed stupid fucking treaties).
If UK law makes it illegal to hack computers then he broke UK law, and so he should be tried in the UK. Having been tried in the UK it would be wrong to permit trial in the US too.
There is thus no circumstance under which he should face trial in the US.
Try him in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act or let him get on with his life.
$15/month to access game demos? Sorry, you think people should pay to receive advertising?
How about Online pay me $15/month and I'll maybe allow some of my time to play a demo or two. After all, the only outcomes for me are
- I play a game and it's shite, so I waste my time
- I play a game and it's great, so I buy it
Either way I lose out (time or money) and Onlive have the chance of a sale they would otherwise have lost.
(Except of course, I wont be buying through Onlive, because I'll get a cheaper better gaming experience by buying the game from Steam/Amazon)
Don't lets even get started on the ability to preview games through the unofficial channels (i.e. piracy) or through rental services (e.g. I can play as many games as I like each month for a fixed cost, with the game discs sent through the posts to me by LoveFilm).
Lets put this in perspective: Metaboli charge approximately the same but give you access to their full catalogue of games at no extra cost, to play in full and not as a demo. Why on earth would I ever go to Onlive instead of Metaboli?
I'm not even hardcore twitch these days, and "full HD" would be a backwards step from my gaming experience for the past three years.
720p, with 150ms input to display latency, excessive bandwidth demands and a higher cost than just buying the games I want to play? Forgive me for being unconvinced.
The irony is that I'd love this service to become viable and effective. The Arena looks magnificent (although raises privacy concerns for things like in-game chat), the ability to play demos is desperately needed and if I could have the choice of playing the same game (purchased just once) via Onlive or through a local installation then I'd leap at it.
Excellent, congratulations.
Incidentally, how much space do you need for your self-sufficient farm (that isn't self sufficient, as you accept aid from others from time to time)?
I only ask because my self-sufficient techno-industrial complex has a population density high enough to sustain 8 billion people on the planet and feed them all, without increasing the amount of farmland, destroying the rainforests or running out of water.
How about you?
Utter bull. Your right to life for example. Without a government willing to protect it by enforcing punishments, pleading "I have a right to live" to the chap with a gun is utterly meaningless.
The right to live exists entirely irrespective of the ability to protect it.
If someone kills you, they have abridged your right to life. The failure of Government to prevent that curtailment of your rights does not negate the right; it merely means you were unable to exercise that right.
Rights exist. Protecting those rights typically requires a structured society, often resembling a Government, but the rights are there anyway.
in a word, horseshit.
where are all the jobs advertised in Physics, in Economics, in Pure Maths, in Film & Theatre Studies.
I have a degree in Accounting and Financial Analysis, neither of which is my job, Meanwhile none of the accountants I know have a degree in accounting.
Sure, study something vocational if you love it and want to do it for a living, but don't constrain people brcause very few occupations require a specific degree.
Designing, writing and integrating software packages has little to do with Computer Science. It does fall under the banner of IT and also Software Engineering.
Computer Scientists never have been the best software engineers and programmers. Few companies genuinely need computer science skills; it's not a vocational degree. It would be interesting to see how Pure Maths grads are doing..
Your main point on the outsourcing of software skills is sadly true though, and may lead to a skills shortage in a few years as the supply of people with a programming background dries up. Bad for the economy, great for those few of us with a strong credible track record
These days any image I take that I want to keep is on the web within seconds of taking it - 3G enabled cameras make this trivial.
So deleting it from the local storage is easy and also completely irrelevant. Good luck tracking down my online store..
Why is it so dumb? With the wind in the right direction you can float over the Channel / La Manche with no power in a few hours anyway
That's why it's so dumb. Ooh, we can use solar power to do something... we could do with no power.
Oh, that was hard. Next: Making the helium filled blimp rise into the air using just solar power!
Choice and expression of religion is something I'm very comfortable with. Use of religion in public office I'm very much against. Use of religion as part of killing someone is murder.
As for announcing the decision to kill someone being political speech, that's also a terrible motive, and merely confirms my belief that this is state sponsored murder and fuck all to do with justice.
Killing him wont have made his victims feel any better at all, because they're fucking dead. And don't even consider raising his victims' families as interested parties. Murderers have families too.
Justice does not include letting the victim exact revenge.
When you have a radical, religious, fascist fanatic writing blogs all over the Internet, you do not expect him to show some decency.
He didn't, he used Twitter to announce his gleeful order to kill someone.
No way to tell how many at all. Let's start at zero and wait for evidence before we go any further.
Or do you feel that the significant proportion of people executed in America that are later proven innocent of the crime for which they are killed is justified in some strange and twisted manner?
was there some wording or tone of the announcement that somehow offended you and you thought it was in poor taste?
Yeah. What the fuck was that bullshit about some 'god' type thing? How the hell is it remoteley legal for an elected politician to include his archaic superstitious beliefs in a decision to take someone's life.
That's not murder, that's religiously motivated murder, an abuse of office and should be illegal. Even in the US.
That's fine, but my point is that what you say is a matter of interpretation, and depends on where you draw the "murder" line. Because of that, "Do not murder" does not necessarily apply to capital punishment.
So calling the state forcibly putting someone to death 'murder' is a matter of interpretation, but 'thou shalt not kill' really means 'thou shalt not murder'?
Mistranslation or misinterpretation, methinks you're on dodgy dodgy ground.