> Protecting your country is your duty. Going overseas to attack some country on whatever pretext is generally known as "adventuring".
When you come up with a solid way to tell the difference between the two, get back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by your definition, the only war the US should have fought would be perhaps against the Japanese in WW2 and against the Taliban in Afghanistan, maybe.
> Draft IS slavery, in slavery someone who doesn't do that work expends your lifetime and production to enrich himself
By that definition, employment is slavery as well.
>"The man whose choices are made for him is a slave." >"He who produces to have his product disposed of by others without his consent is a slave."
These are nice rhetorical devices, but they're far removed from reality. In many ways, everyone has choices are made for them every day. Worth considering is how the Greeks viewed the 'draft' of their time: as an honor and duty bestowed on landowners.
> I say take out the vote as it is today. If you vote pro war in any issue, politician or not, you're INSTA DRAFTED.
What are you, 12? What about senior citizens? What about pregnant women? Some parts of our society are simply not fit to be soldiers, yet you're completely willing to silence their opinion because they'd be incapable of fighting.
> a draft is slavery, and the worst form of it
Again, please get some perspective. Calling the draft slavery is an insult to anyone who was, you know, actually a slave. While I certainly think the draft is a bad idea, the notion that you owe some debt to your country which is repaid by a brief period of military service is not entirely misguided.
> They were meant to "protect from enemies foreign". And that is what they should do.
Sometimes the best way to protect us from something is to seek it out and destroy it. The idea that armies should only be used in a "circle the wagons" style defense is sort of ridiculous.
> I think the best demonstration that a problem exists is on this story - Slashdot's tags are currently: tags, tagging, no, tag.
Oh, there's a problem, all right. The problem is that tags are worthless. As noted by pretty much everyone, 90% of the tags are 'yes, no, maybe, fud, notfud, itsatrap, thinkofthechildren' and words that are already in the title of the article. This is not helpful, this is noise. I have no idea what the tagging system is supposed to help with, other than providing everyone a chance to be anonymously snarky.
Exactly. I'm sure Google would be glad to help out with the War On Terrism and black out/blur any particular rectangles of the globe the US Gov't wants if it asked nicely.
No sarcasm, btw. I'm sure they would. I mean, as long as we're talking about sensitive locations in Iraq, not just "We don't want anyone looking at potential targets in Poughkeepsie, so just blur out all of the eastern seaboard."
> I hate to nitpick, but I fail to see how "indiscriminately" is the same as retaliating against what they see as(and arguably are*) foreign, hostile, and invading forces.
If they were actually fighting against the hated foreign invaders, you'd think they'd be a lot more careful about who they bomb. There's a lot of civilian casualties that the US isn't causing.
Sure, we lose a 40 hour/week programmer position to [india|china|vietnam|swaziland], but we generate 40 hours/week worth of bugfixing and project management work, so it's really a wash.
It's only trivial because it's easy in standard html. We could do the same thing with html:
"It's almost impossible to simply update the current pages content without a refresh. Nontrivial solutions to trivial problems. That, almost by definition, makes it a bad technology"
Or c:
"You have to manage every single byte of RAM you use, unlike Java which simply garbage collects for you. Nontrivial solutions to trivial problems. That, almost by definition, makes it a bad technology"
of course not. Getting porn off the internet is, like someone who I can't remember once said, is like getting pee out of a pool. But it IS productive in that it creates a simple, clear demarcation between where general and adult content belongs.
I view it as the porn industry protecting itself. I don't think that any legitimate business -wants- underage kids looking at their wide selection of Mongolian Goat Porn. Setting up shop under a xxx banner is a pretty clear indicator that they're adult content, and since filtering on a.xxx tld is so impossibly easy to do it's a pretty clear indicator that the business has taken all reasonable steps to prevent underage kids from gaining access.
> The very nature of pages being assembled on the client-side dynamically is what prevents features like bookmarks from working.
Like I said, that's simply not true. There's nothing about Ajax-style programming that prevents bookmarkability. Yes, it's a lot harder. But, as with everything in life, it's a tradeoff. Bookmarkability is hard in ajax apps, as is handling the back button properly.
And, as someone else mentioned, POST breaks the back button just as effectively, but no one is standing up and advocating avoiding forms-based websites.
Whats wrong with putting a friggin python interpreter in a browser ?
Because it's whitespace sensitive and HTML isn't. It's a recipe for disaster.
Also, you're an idiot who wouldn't know a great language if it bit you on the ass. All the downsides of Javascript are in the interface with HTML, and that's not going to change if you replace it with python, ruby or whatever the hiip 'n' trendy language is this week.
It's just a JavaScript library that allows the page to communicate with the server without clicking a link and bringing up a new page. How does that encourage poor development?
By enabling development to occur at all. The program that is never written has zero bugs and is therefore the perfect program.
those 'gigantic problems' aren't problems with Ajax. There exist good solutions for both. The solutions, however, are nontrivial and are typically ignored by developers for whatever reasons.
I'm in favor of laws enforcing good behavior, which apparently put me at odds with the slashdot Rugged Individualist crowd. The law harms no one except shitheads.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Someone asked someone else to stop linking directly to his content, which cost him money. Instead of acting like a decent human, he continued to do so. Now his lack of common courtesy has been penalized by the law. The system works.
there's no completely sound analogy. The bottom line is that the defendant was asked several times to not link it. Instead of being a decent human and saying "ok, it's your stuff, whatever" and not linking it, he chose to be a jerk about it.
Deep linking is still legal. Deep linking to something you've been asked not to by the rightful owner? Well, at least now there's legal precedent for what should be simple courtesy.
Ok, yes, thanks for the condescending post, but you didn't really address this issue:
> This decision in no way forbids linking to deep links, it merely affirms the owner of said targets the right to say "stop".
We all know how the web works. Now, a brief lesson in how the world works: if I ask you not to do take advantage of my property by trespassing or borrowing it or whatever, you should stop. The fact that you CAN trespass because I haven't set up stone walls around my property doesn't mean it's ok for you to do so. Now this applies to the internet as well. Deep link all you want, this decision doesn't change anything. What it DOES change is that now I get to ask you not to, and you'll be fined if you don't comply. It's basically "don't be a jerk" codified into law. I fail to see the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
> Protecting your country is your duty. Going overseas to attack some country on whatever pretext is generally known as "adventuring".
When you come up with a solid way to tell the difference between the two, get back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by your definition, the only war the US should have fought would be perhaps against the Japanese in WW2 and against the Taliban in Afghanistan, maybe.
> Draft IS slavery, in slavery someone who doesn't do that work expends your lifetime and production to enrich himself
By that definition, employment is slavery as well.
>"The man whose choices are made for him is a slave."
>"He who produces to have his product disposed of by others without his consent is a slave."
These are nice rhetorical devices, but they're far removed from reality. In many ways, everyone has choices are made for them every day. Worth considering is how the Greeks viewed the 'draft' of their time: as an honor and duty bestowed on landowners.
> I say take out the vote as it is today. If you vote pro war in any issue, politician or not, you're INSTA DRAFTED.
What are you, 12? What about senior citizens? What about pregnant women? Some parts of our society are simply not fit to be soldiers, yet you're completely willing to silence their opinion because they'd be incapable of fighting.
> a draft is slavery, and the worst form of it
Again, please get some perspective. Calling the draft slavery is an insult to anyone who was, you know, actually a slave. While I certainly think the draft is a bad idea, the notion that you owe some debt to your country which is repaid by a brief period of military service is not entirely misguided.
> They were meant to "protect from enemies foreign". And that is what they should do.
Sometimes the best way to protect us from something is to seek it out and destroy it. The idea that armies should only be used in a "circle the wagons" style defense is sort of ridiculous.
> I think the best demonstration that a problem exists is on this story - Slashdot's tags are currently: tags, tagging, no, tag.
Oh, there's a problem, all right. The problem is that tags are worthless. As noted by pretty much everyone, 90% of the tags are 'yes, no, maybe, fud, notfud, itsatrap, thinkofthechildren' and words that are already in the title of the article. This is not helpful, this is noise. I have no idea what the tagging system is supposed to help with, other than providing everyone a chance to be anonymously snarky.
Exactly. I'm sure Google would be glad to help out with the War On Terrism and black out/blur any particular rectangles of the globe the US Gov't wants if it asked nicely.
No sarcasm, btw. I'm sure they would. I mean, as long as we're talking about sensitive locations in Iraq, not just "We don't want anyone looking at potential targets in Poughkeepsie, so just blur out all of the eastern seaboard."
> I hate to nitpick, but I fail to see how "indiscriminately" is the same as retaliating against what they see as(and arguably are*) foreign, hostile, and invading forces.
If they were actually fighting against the hated foreign invaders, you'd think they'd be a lot more careful about who they bomb. There's a lot of civilian casualties that the US isn't causing.
> Many of them are quitting everyday
How exactly do you 'quit' the USMC/Army? Are they even letting soldiers leave after their X years are up?
> if civilian and pro war, you're a coward asking others to spill blood in your stead
so civilians can't be pro-war?
Because it's obviously one of the first things to spring to mind for a lot of people?
Sure, we lose a 40 hour/week programmer position to [india|china|vietnam|swaziland], but we generate 40 hours/week worth of bugfixing and project management work, so it's really a wash.
> Nontrivial solutions to trivial problems
It's only trivial because it's easy in standard html. We could do the same thing with html:
"It's almost impossible to simply update the current pages content without a refresh. Nontrivial solutions to trivial problems. That, almost by definition, makes it a bad technology"
Or c:
"You have to manage every single byte of RAM you use, unlike Java which simply garbage collects for you. Nontrivial solutions to trivial problems. That, almost by definition, makes it a bad technology"
I could go on and on. You get the idea.
The trick in that situation is convincing someone that your currency is anything more than a novelty.
of course not. Getting porn off the internet is, like someone who I can't remember once said, is like getting pee out of a pool. But it IS productive in that it creates a simple, clear demarcation between where general and adult content belongs.
I view it as the porn industry protecting itself. I don't think that any legitimate business -wants- underage kids looking at their wide selection of Mongolian Goat Porn. Setting up shop under a xxx banner is a pretty clear indicator that they're adult content, and since filtering on a .xxx tld is so impossibly easy to do it's a pretty clear indicator that the business has taken all reasonable steps to prevent underage kids from gaining access.
> The very nature of pages being assembled on the client-side dynamically is what prevents features like bookmarks from working.
Like I said, that's simply not true. There's nothing about Ajax-style programming that prevents bookmarkability. Yes, it's a lot harder. But, as with everything in life, it's a tradeoff. Bookmarkability is hard in ajax apps, as is handling the back button properly.
And, as someone else mentioned, POST breaks the back button just as effectively, but no one is standing up and advocating avoiding forms-based websites.
> I cannot disagree. BUT it dosent mean its the right choice or even a good choice.
So far all we have from you is assertions:
- javascript is shit
- python would be better
Care to back any of them up with some logical arguments?
ps: no one cares about what you claim you've done in what language and why.
Because it's whitespace sensitive and HTML isn't. It's a recipe for disaster.
Also, you're an idiot who wouldn't know a great language if it bit you on the ass. All the downsides of Javascript are in the interface with HTML, and that's not going to change if you replace it with python, ruby or whatever the hiip 'n' trendy language is this week.
By enabling development to occur at all. The program that is never written has zero bugs and is therefore the perfect program.
those 'gigantic problems' aren't problems with Ajax. There exist good solutions for both. The solutions, however, are nontrivial and are typically ignored by developers for whatever reasons.
so, basically, free as in 'getting paid to drink free beer.'
that's pretty free.
> Does this only apply to Europe?
Yes, obviously. America also banned import of Canadian beef a while back.
well, apparently you do, now.
I'm in favor of laws enforcing good behavior, which apparently put me at odds with the slashdot Rugged Individualist crowd. The law harms no one except shitheads.
> Yelling at the guy is not the solution. Not giving people only page 7 is the solution.
I think we can all agree that the technical solution is the best one. However, if you ask the guy to stop telling everyone, he should.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Someone asked someone else to stop linking directly to his content, which cost him money. Instead of acting like a decent human, he continued to do so. Now his lack of common courtesy has been penalized by the law. The system works.
there's no completely sound analogy. The bottom line is that the defendant was asked several times to not link it. Instead of being a decent human and saying "ok, it's your stuff, whatever" and not linking it, he chose to be a jerk about it.
Deep linking is still legal. Deep linking to something you've been asked not to by the rightful owner? Well, at least now there's legal precedent for what should be simple courtesy.
Ok, yes, thanks for the condescending post, but you didn't really address this issue:
> This decision in no way forbids linking to deep links, it merely affirms the owner of said targets the right to say "stop".
We all know how the web works. Now, a brief lesson in how the world works: if I ask you not to do take advantage of my property by trespassing or borrowing it or whatever, you should stop. The fact that you CAN trespass because I haven't set up stone walls around my property doesn't mean it's ok for you to do so. Now this applies to the internet as well. Deep link all you want, this decision doesn't change anything. What it DOES change is that now I get to ask you not to, and you'll be fined if you don't comply. It's basically "don't be a jerk" codified into law. I fail to see the problem.
ps: 'condescending' means 'talk down to'
> No, actually, they pretty much broke the internet.
No they didn't. That's a little too close to an reductio ad absurdum argument. They just made being a shithead punishable by fines.
If I ask you to stop direct-linking to my content - content which I pay to transfer - and you don't, you're a shithead, and you should be fined.