You really want to raise the 'Day of Freedom' and Sargon as examples?
Twitter told Sargon that "âoeYour account was suspended because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse."
Ok, has Twitter also banned the accounts of the people participating in targeted abuse against a Labour voter that was also at the 'Day of Freedom'?
I mean, is she really being oppressed when people are merely trying to destroy her career for daring to perform a drag act in front of a gay man, a lesbian woman, a Scottish communist and (because free speech is an apolitical issue) a bunch of idiots, and she ends up losing multiple sources of income?
This is not a spam filter. This is Twitter imposing specific political views and it's extremely appropriate to call them out on it.
I don't even use the word, except when discussing its use, but it's a perfectly legitimate word, it has meaning, it has both historical and modern context and it's a hell of a lot more oppressive to ban its use than it is to use it.
If someone has claimed rights on the music then Google should be giving us an easy way to contact them - either to tell them they're wrong, to licence the music or to tell them to stop stealing our content with their abusive policies.
But that would mean Google looking out for consumer interests, so I wont hold my breath waiting.
You want it to be legal for people to access any computer system, irrespective of its owner's wishes or authority? You don't think that might cause some problems?
In your massive over-reaction, you left out whether or not it has to be an integer, whether it is signed, and the size of the integer.
Why the fuck would he waste his time replicating in the comments what's already in the fucking code?/* create a procedure call fucknuts with a short integer parameter fiscal_year */ create procedure fucknuts (fiscal_year shortinteger)...
That's really fucking helpful. Just skip the fucking comment and save yourself the maintenance overhead.
he can't control what people do with it after he decides to share it with the world
I suspect he'd agree completely with you. One reason he shared it with the world is to allow them to do what they want with it (except hide it and prevent others from doing the same).
What he's preventing them from doing is changing his copy of his code.
i dont know how commonplace it is to put jokes in professional code
Very. Almost mandatory.
To the layman, jokes appear unprofessional.
The layman wont understand a large number of the jokes, or even that they are jokes. But that aside, programmers are people. People have a sense of humour. Why would they put that aside when being creative?
If you take a look at three.js you can see that xbox level graphics are available from within the browser
So fucking what? I don't play C64 games these days, why would I want xbox graphics?
I want games that look like theHunter:Call of the Wild, that run as smoothly, that do so at high resolution with a modest graphics card. Has anybody done anything remotely like that with three.js?
So if I create a new user account, and use the login JohnSuperSekrrit1! do I get to claim ownership of yours or should I just leech anything useful then move on?
We should start this debate now, so that by the time it starts to matter in 2096 or so the main arguments are refined, well understood and people can skip straight to the flaming.
Like data pertaining to individuals that should not have been published on the site and to which he should not have access.
How can they even seize his hardware and THEN decide it was NOT hacking?
You do not seize hardware after a court case. You seize it to discover evidence that would influence a decision to prosecute. If the decision to prosecute is made, the evidence is then presented at the court case.
On this occasion the decision was made to not prosecute. Shitty situation for the innocent party, but still a reasonable sequence of actions.
Slashdot Mirror
You really want to raise the 'Day of Freedom' and Sargon as examples?
Twitter told Sargon that "âoeYour account was suspended because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse."
Ok, has Twitter also banned the accounts of the people participating in targeted abuse against a Labour voter that was also at the 'Day of Freedom'?
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/201...
I mean, is she really being oppressed when people are merely trying to destroy her career for daring to perform a drag act in front of a gay man, a lesbian woman, a Scottish communist and (because free speech is an apolitical issue) a bunch of idiots, and she ends up losing multiple sources of income?
This is not a spam filter. This is Twitter imposing specific political views and it's extremely appropriate to call them out on it.
It's censorship, and I fucking hate it.
I don't even use the word, except when discussing its use, but it's a perfectly legitimate word, it has meaning, it has both historical and modern context and it's a hell of a lot more oppressive to ban its use than it is to use it.
If someone has claimed rights on the music then Google should be giving us an easy way to contact them - either to tell them they're wrong, to licence the music or to tell them to stop stealing our content with their abusive policies.
But that would mean Google looking out for consumer interests, so I wont hold my breath waiting.
A fuck of a lot less than they have to spend investigating and prosecuting the various ICO frauds that are going on.
This could well come in as a net saving in government expenditure.
Am I a complete and total anomaly for not caring about a front facing camera?
Just ditch the thing. Oh no, I wont be able to take selfies. Good, means I don't have to fucking kill myself.
What the fuck is a race bait dog whistle anyway? Could you perhaps try explaining this in English?
Then follow up by telling us why the post to which you replied qualifies, because I'm totally fucking lost here.
Given drugs are reputedly easier to acquire in prison than they are outside, is that really a serious concern?
Why?
You want it to be legal for people to access any computer system, irrespective of its owner's wishes or authority? You don't think that might cause some problems?
I mean, who the fuck thought that was a good idea in a relatively young immigrant nation?
Me. I'd vote for that law in the UK too, even if it would mean at least one of my favourite politicians losing their seat.
It's amazing what people will endure to stay free.
Sadly it's also amazing what people will endure to avoid having to fight to stay free.
Plus of course the store will have a till roll (electronic or paper) that shows sales made, and will add up to that deposited sum.
Otherwise they're in deep shit on the tax front anyway.
When was the last time any legit small store had 10,000$ in the actual building in cash?
I see you've never worked in a city centre pub at a weekend.
In your massive over-reaction, you left out whether or not it has to be an integer, whether it is signed, and the size of the integer.
Why the fuck would he waste his time replicating in the comments what's already in the fucking code? /* create a procedure call fucknuts with a short integer parameter fiscal_year */ ...
create procedure fucknuts (fiscal_year shortinteger)
That's really fucking helpful. Just skip the fucking comment and save yourself the maintenance overhead.
This is why I'm not pro-choice. I'm pro-abortion.
Population's too high anyway.
he can't control what people do with it after he decides to share it with the world
I suspect he'd agree completely with you. One reason he shared it with the world is to allow them to do what they want with it (except hide it and prevent others from doing the same).
What he's preventing them from doing is changing his copy of his code.
i dont know how commonplace it is to put jokes in professional code
Very. Almost mandatory.
To the layman, jokes appear unprofessional.
The layman wont understand a large number of the jokes, or even that they are jokes. But that aside, programmers are people. People have a sense of humour. Why would they put that aside when being creative?
Hell, even the mathematically inclined professional actuaries have jokes: https://actuarialjokes.com/
It's just fucking illogical to believe that my statement relies on that fallacy.
You know this, I know this. The AC to whom I replied appears not to.
Then you try and understand how they got there, what caused death, whether a crime was committed and if so, who did it.
I'm willing to have state employees take that risk. If they don't want to, just stop killing people for a living.
I think there are a few seconds before brain function ceases. However it's not a widely researched situation for some reason.
There is no obligation to be "fair" when fighting injustice.
I disagree. Do not commit injustices to prevent injustice, as you merely perpetuate injustice.
If you take a look at three.js you can see that xbox level graphics are available from within the browser
So fucking what? I don't play C64 games these days, why would I want xbox graphics?
I want games that look like theHunter:Call of the Wild, that run as smoothly, that do so at high resolution with a modest graphics card. Has anybody done anything remotely like that with three.js?
So if I create a new user account, and use the login JohnSuperSekrrit1! do I get to claim ownership of yours or should I just leech anything useful then move on?
We should start this debate now, so that by the time it starts to matter in 2096 or so the main arguments are refined, well understood and people can skip straight to the flaming.
Hmm sensitive info.. like
Like data pertaining to individuals that should not have been published on the site and to which he should not have access.
How can they even seize his hardware and THEN decide it was NOT hacking?
You do not seize hardware after a court case. You seize it to discover evidence that would influence a decision to prosecute. If the decision to prosecute is made, the evidence is then presented at the court case.
On this occasion the decision was made to not prosecute. Shitty situation for the innocent party, but still a reasonable sequence of actions.