Ultimately I like the idea of a 'personal cloud' for that. If you really want to gaurantee you will never lose your service and never lose your data that's the only way. Any company can drop a service or go away. A good suite of personal cloud software that is easy to install on a cheap shared web host is what is needed. Then of course, it is up to the user to back things up regularly.
I used to care more about privacy and didn't want companies collecting a bunch of information about me. But it's so hard to avoid! I held out for years on creating a Facebook acount. so.. my wife created it 'for' me. grrr!
But.. how has all this information being out there really effected me? All I have noticed is that the ads on most websites seem to be targeted to me. So.. I get this nice warm comfortable feeling that all my geeky interests are more normal and I am not so alone out there. As a geeky male I see ads for oscilloscopes and capacitor checkers where once I might have seen ads for purses and clothing.
Over the years since internet access came out I have developed quite an internal filter for advertisements. I could look at a page full of ads and really only see the content, it was like the ads were invisible. Now I actually find myself clicking them fairly often. And.. it isn't a bad thing, they are often actually interesting to me. Occasionaly even more so than the content I came to see!
I know there is a principle somewhere I should be getting upset about. But... it's getting hard for me to care.
Great, Slashdot users are starting to realize it. Now how about a group of people that marketing drones actually give a shit about realize that the current trends in devices and their interfaces SUCKS!
High risk? Nothing bad has happened to me! I think you are just spreading FUD!
Some of us actually need functionality that Apple choses not to allow. For example.. I jailbreak to get encarcerapp. It's an app that allows me to lock out the home button or even the touch screen. Then I can hand the pad to my 3 y/o daughter and she can play a game or watch a movie while I drive the car and she isn't getting herself out of the app and then asking me to get it going again every couple of seconds. Somebody at Apple decided their customers shouldn't have that sort of functionality so... have to jailbreak to get it.
Now, don't get me wrong. The best option is just to buy Android and let Apple and iOS rot... if I were buying a tablet myself that is what I would do. My workplace bought the tablets. They are iOS fans big time. No, I'm not abusing company resources. They told us to use them personally, let our families use them, etc... It was all about being with the times, learning about the latest tech and maybe getting ideas we can use in our own products, not necessarily about doing our work on the tablet.
This is what I learned. To allow a child to use an iOS device you need to jailbreak and install incarcerapp. Otherwise it is useless!
If they always had that ability then you are correct. However if that was the case then DEET would have never worked so well. They seemed to have evolved the ability to down-regulate their response to the chemical.
No, you are paritally correct, evolution doesn't happen within a generation. They aren't evolving at the moment they aquire imunity to DEET though. If this is evolution it happens before that. What is happening is the mosquitos are being conceived with a mechanism that allows them to develop an insensitivity to DEET with one exposure. That mechanism already exists within the mosquito before it is exposed and could very well be a product of evolution.
Are humans an important enough part of the average mosauito's diet to drive evolution? It isn't like all the wild animals out there are using mosquito spray. If mosquitos are evolving in response to our DEET usage then what does this tell us?
The business use rules would mean that setting up your own carrier and selling service on it using the ham bands is definitely out. Some sort of free-access mesh network or even just setting up your own personal access point would still be possible so long as it was on frequencies that are allowed for Auxiliary Stations. That means no HF however HF wouldn't work for internet access anyway. There isn' t enough bandwidth plus skip would mean lot's of interference.
Rules regarding codes and cyphers would mean users could have neither privacy or anonymity but if for example, you don't care about other's knowing what you do on Slashdot you could surf it all day.
As for the test, yes, extra takes a lot of studying. I happen to be working on that one now myself. Technician however is pretty easy and that is all you would need.
The bigger problem is one of bandwidth not law. If internet over ham radio became too popular we would lose ham radio as we have it today. It would just be people trying to get on the net, not so much other hams to talk to! For this reason I would not want to see this become too popular, at least not anywhere below the microwave bands.
Legally, at least in the US you cannot communicate anything via ham radio in which you or your employer have a pecuniary interest. I'm not sure how browsing a web page that includes ads violates either of those, unless maybe it is your company's homepage. The FCC has even ruled in the past that incidental commercial activity (like using an autopatch to order yourself a pizza) is ok.
However, many hams do take a stricter view of the law than the law itself and would probably be quick to get on and tell you so. This in large part no doubt comes from another fact of life. Bandwidth is limited. If Ham radio became seen as a viable method for wireless internet it could easily become overcrowded with people who aren't even interested in talking to one another or any of the other traditional uses for ham radio. It would just be an internet gateway. Would the licensing requirement prevent this? Probably not as the entry level license really isn't that hard to get anymore. Also, once it became popular for this use people would probably just ignore the licensing requirement anyway. That is what happened with CB, leading the FCC to eventually give up and make CB unlicensed.
The encryption limitation is also a valid issue. I'm not sure it is so completely insurmountable though. The law (in the US) is that 'codes and cyphers' may not be used to intentionally obscure the meaning of a transmission. Most hams interperet this as meaning 'no encryption'. I'm not sure that is really what the law is saying though. If 'codes and cyphers' are completely taboo then why even menton the 'to obscure the meaning of' part? I'm thinking that a public/private key encryption scheme where the public key is transmitted in the clear as a part of the transmission (or at least every 10 minutes along with the callsign) shouldn't violate this law. Such a scheme wouldn't allow you any anonymity nor would it allow any private conversations. It would however allow you to prove that you are who you say you are. That alone would make ordering your pizza 'or anything else' safe and secure so long as you had previously put your credit card info on file with the company you are ordering from using some other method.
Of course, this is just my take on things and IANAL!
Really, I wouldn't want to see this take off in popularity, at least not on the MF-UHF bands where the majority of ham radio traffic currently resides. Everybody want's internet access, the faster the better. There just isn't that kind of bandwidth available, it would destroy ham radio without even making that much of a dent in the demand for internet access. On the other hand, there are microwave ham bands that are limited to line of site and as far as I can tell are only really ever used by hams in a few small geographical regions and then only for very sporadic experimentation. If some hams set up internet gateways there I'm not sure it would hurt anything.
As a side note though, I have always thought there should be an unlicensed, open, free-for-all band. A band where the only two rules are any bleedover to frequencies outside the band must be very small (such that they would fit under part 15 rules for unintentional radiators) and you can't expose others to unsafe levels of RF (imagining killowatts into an antenna mounted next to a busy sidewalk for example). I think expected violation of that first rule is one of the reasons we do not have such a band. I'd just make the penalties high, including large fines which could then be used to fund enforcement.
Obviously interference within the band would be rampant and there would be no grounds for anyone to remove anyone else that interferes with them. The barrier for entry however would be near zero. You want to be a broadcaster, go ahead and just do it. You want to talk further than CB allows but w/o a license, go ahead and try. Once you get tired of dealing with all the interference you can go get a license for a 'real' band. It would probably be an entertaining band just to have a rece
Why should we care what their motivation is? If the money helps improve my future or the future of one or more of my loved ones then why should I care why they did it? If it doesn't then well.. it was their money any way I didn't expect to benefit from it yesterday! And no, it doesn't matter what I think of how they got the money. They already had it even before making this announcement. To me this just means that I MIGHT some day benefit from their fortunes. That's a win as I see it!
Besides, they are real life human beings, not cartoon characters. I have no doubt that their motivations are complex with a mixture of seeking personal gain and helping others and probably in several ways for both. If I'm honest about it I don't think I ever do much of anything for only one reason. Do any of you?
If we were talking about civil rights, prohibition or some other popular cause you might have a point there. If anybody believes thay are going to make a difference in trademark law by simply disobeying a court they are only going to cause pain for themselves. If you want change in this area you need to convince the public, both that you are right AND that this is actually an issue worth fighting for. Then... if lawmakers still don't get the message maybe somebody simply disobeying the law will get some media attention followed by public outrage and some change.
Until that day comes (and it isn't coming, not for this kind of issue) simply disobeying is only going to leave you bankrupt and possibly in jail. It will not help to bring about change. Writing your congressmen (a lot), not voting back in the ones who created this mess (which probably means voting third party) and informing others about the issues are the only ways you can help bring change. Sacrificing your livelihood and freedom by ignoring the judge isn't going to do it. As they lock you away your friends and family will be the only ones to know your story or care.
That's like saying good thing nobody ever wins the lottery or good thing nobody ever gets hit by lighting.
Laws are declared unconstitutional only at the Supreme Court level. The percentage of cases that even make it that high is tiny. Even if you get that far (statistics say you will not), right or wrong the judges may not interperet the constitution the same way you do.
If you are already in trouble for breaking a law which may be unconstitutional anyway, then yeah, try your best to get it taken care of in the courts. If you just want to change a bad law... there are much better ways than intentionaly breaking it just to go fight it in court.
Ultimately I think about a 3-hour work week is what the world is going to need. The alternative is going to be massive unemployment. What work do we really need to get done? Mainly farming and manufacturing. In that order. Both of these require far less labor than they did in the past due to technology. This trend is only going to accelerate. So far the sollution has been to just consume more. All that is really getting us is fat, in debt and filling our landfills.
We are going to have to shift people away from farming and manufacturing into other industries (as has been happening). But those industries don't have a use for all those workers either, not at a 40-hour work week and certainly not at the 80+ hours many factory workers have been acustomed to.
Is working less so bad? What has mankind been striving for in developing all this technology anyway? I hope it's not all just for more throw-away cell phones!
Unfortunately now that we have globalization this is a change that must occur everywhere at once to be successful. I don't see how this can happen when we still have developing nations where people are willing to work all the hours their bodies can push out just to get by and developed nations with a work ethic that was developed more to win a world war than anything applicable to today.
How just the legal system is has nothing to do with it! Their job is to uphold the law! If the law is really bad and the judge is a good person then he/she might try to lessen the impact by selecting a less harsh punishment but that is about the best you can hope for. It's called "Separation of Powers". It's not within the judge's responsibility or even authority to make the law. He/She is there to uphold the law. At the upper levels this may involve some interperetation where the written law is unclear but it does not involve changing it!
If you want to get a law change petition the legislative branch, not the judicial! Sure, protest. Do that to get others on your side. You need support when your legislators are elected. Show them they will get more votes in the next election by seeing things your way. Yes, protesting may land you in jail for a bit. Sometimes that's the price to be paid for getting change. Don't expect the judge to take pitty and change the law for you though!
Spend some time in jail for protesting the law you dislike if you have to but don't go for breaking it!
What? Since when do judges even have the authority to declare a law unjust? They are there to judge wether or not you broke it and/or determine the apropriate punishment. It doesn't matter if the judge agrees with the law or not he/she is there to uphold it. the judge might be able to lessen the impact of a bad law by handing out minimum sentences but that's about it. It's the legislature's job to actually make the law.
After which he would check the box stating he has been convicted of a felony on every job application he ever fills out. Even fast food doesn't hire people once they do that. His best bet at future employment would be cutting up old asbestos in some scrap yard somewhere for less than minimum wage under the table.
That is only true if the progress is based on time. If it's based on data up/downloaded/processed/etc... then it would never have to go backwards. Of course, it could speed up/slow down which might also annoy the user who is really more interested in time then anything. I think the best answer to that is to also display the current speed which data is being processed. That way the user can see that yes, 5% took less time a minute ago then the current 5% but it's because something slowed down. It isn't in the software's control.
I think a better solution is to display the progress bar based on % of data processed and have text which indicates that same percentage, current speed, and estimated remaining time. That estimated remaining time would jump up and down but IF the user actually thinks about it they should be able to see the reason why by watching what the speed does.
It seems to me that is what I remember browsers doing when they indicated download progress years ago. They probably removed this info, dumbed things down because of marketing.
I never said anything was good for them! I'm saying the particular mistakes they made are all too common in this society and coddling the 'victims' is counterproductive.
Just creating a compromising digital picture of yourself, unless you are entering the porn industry and are aware plus willing to accept any issues this will create for you in this society is mistake number one.
Then, putting them on a computer connected to the internet, mistake number two.
Whoever they actually meant to share the original pictures with (which no doubt was the purpose of one and two), that is mistake number three. At breakup time many of them were going on websites any way no doubt.
Giving more pictures to the scumbag that hacked their accounts! Huge mistake number four. What did they expect next? Did they think a guy who would do that would have the integrity to honour any promises he made about not sharing them, leaving them alone, etc... Really?!?
Not immediately contacting FB to get their accounts turned off, there is a fifth mistake.
At this point it's almost like they were enjoying the ride! They could have ended it at any time!
I'm sure there are some more mistakes in there somewhere, really weak passwords maybe?
Do I think pointing this out and calling them stupid is 'justified as being good for them'? No! I never said that! I am saying it is good for everybody else! When wolves or big cats attack a hurd of larger animals and take out the weak ones it is good for the herd. It is NOT good for the weak animal that was eaten!
Please don't get me wrong. I'm being figurative here. I am not saying these people should be eaten! Nor am I saying their lives should in any way be over, even figuratively. Given time, maybe a name change and significant makeovers so they aren't too easily recognisable hopefully they can get past this. I hope they can grow (a lot) and live happy lives from now on.
But pretending they aren't at fault too.... No! Look at all the crap that has been in the news for the last several years involving sexting! Have these people been living under rocks? Everyone should know better by now but they don't. Instead these things come up more and more. That is frustrating. I want to see people learn from these mistakes and the trends go back towards not doing these things. Instead I just hear about it happening more and more. I'd like ot see that change before my own kids are old enough I have to worry about them.
And? Did you read this part? "I think we can all also agree that Kazaryan is the only one involved who set out to harm others (in a sense) and is the only one deserving of legal punishment."
By all means punish this guy, teach him a lesson and make things safer for everyone else.
All I'm saying that the victims did a stupid thing and can blame themselves (as well as Kazaryan). Regardless of whatever mistakes we all make in our own lives labeling these people as 'poor victims' and pretending they had no part in their own problems only removes the lesson that both themselves and others should learn (or really, should have already known but it's too late for that)
No, on second thought, though the lesson is important it's not really about that. It's about truth. These people made dumb choices that certainly did lead to their own problems. They absolutely should be angry with Kazaryan and he should be punished (though I'm not sold on over 100 years imprisonment). They should be angry at themselves too. It's hard, it's not nice but it's reality. Painting them as victims, uninvolved in creating their own situations is just not accepting reality.
Not to nipick but nobody substitued the word "Germany" for "US", the grandparent substituted "US" for "Germany". It was quite the opposite of what you say makes you feel queasy actually so I guess you are feeling really good right about now.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there needs to be a 'do you really mean to post anonymously' nag screen plus a way to then login without losing what you typed.
That doesn't sound like a good thing to me. Do I buy an Android or an iOS device? Depends which music I like? What if I want a little of both?
Ultimately I like the idea of a 'personal cloud' for that. If you really want to gaurantee you will never lose your service and never lose your data that's the only way. Any company can drop a service or go away. A good suite of personal cloud software that is easy to install on a cheap shared web host is what is needed. Then of course, it is up to the user to back things up regularly.
I used to care more about privacy and didn't want companies collecting a bunch of information about me. But it's so hard to avoid! I held out for years on creating a Facebook acount. so.. my wife created it 'for' me. grrr!
But.. how has all this information being out there really effected me? All I have noticed is that the ads on most websites seem to be targeted to me. So.. I get this nice warm comfortable feeling that all my geeky interests are more normal and I am not so alone out there. As a geeky male I see ads for oscilloscopes and capacitor checkers where once I might have seen ads for purses and clothing.
Over the years since internet access came out I have developed quite an internal filter for advertisements. I could look at a page full of ads and really only see the content, it was like the ads were invisible. Now I actually find myself clicking them fairly often. And.. it isn't a bad thing, they are often actually interesting to me. Occasionaly even more so than the content I came to see!
I know there is a principle somewhere I should be getting upset about. But... it's getting hard for me to care.
Great, Slashdot users are starting to realize it.
Now how about a group of people that marketing drones actually give a shit about realize that the current trends in devices and their interfaces SUCKS!
High risk? Nothing bad has happened to me! I think you are just spreading FUD!
Some of us actually need functionality that Apple choses not to allow. For example.. I jailbreak to get encarcerapp. It's an app that allows me to lock out the home button or even the touch screen. Then I can hand the pad to my 3 y/o daughter and she can play a game or watch a movie while I drive the car and she isn't getting herself out of the app and then asking me to get it going again every couple of seconds. Somebody at Apple decided their customers shouldn't have that sort of functionality so... have to jailbreak to get it.
Now, don't get me wrong. The best option is just to buy Android and let Apple and iOS rot... if I were buying a tablet myself that is what I would do. My workplace bought the tablets. They are iOS fans big time. No, I'm not abusing company resources. They told us to use them personally, let our families use them, etc... It was all about being with the times, learning about the latest tech and maybe getting ideas we can use in our own products, not necessarily about doing our work on the tablet.
This is what I learned. To allow a child to use an iOS device you need to jailbreak and install incarcerapp. Otherwise it is useless!
Wow. Somebody hasn't been laid in way too long have they.
If they always had that ability then you are correct. However if that was the case then DEET would have never worked so well. They seemed to have evolved the ability to down-regulate their response to the chemical.
No, you are paritally correct, evolution doesn't happen within a generation. They aren't evolving at the moment they aquire imunity to DEET though. If this is evolution it happens before that. What is happening is the mosquitos are being conceived with a mechanism that allows them to develop an insensitivity to DEET with one exposure. That mechanism already exists within the mosquito before it is exposed and could very well be a product of evolution.
Maybe. But why?
Are humans an important enough part of the average mosauito's diet to drive evolution? It isn't like all the wild animals out there are using mosquito spray. If mosquitos are evolving in response to our DEET usage then what does this tell us?
The business use rules would mean that setting up your own carrier and selling service on it using the ham bands is definitely out. Some sort of free-access mesh network or even just setting up your own personal access point would still be possible so long as it was on frequencies that are allowed for Auxiliary Stations. That means no HF however HF wouldn't work for internet access anyway. There isn' t enough bandwidth plus skip would mean lot's of interference.
Rules regarding codes and cyphers would mean users could have neither privacy or anonymity but if for example, you don't care about other's knowing what you do on Slashdot you could surf it all day.
As for the test, yes, extra takes a lot of studying. I happen to be working on that one now myself. Technician however is pretty easy and that is all you would need.
The bigger problem is one of bandwidth not law. If internet over ham radio became too popular we would lose ham radio as we have it today. It would just be people trying to get on the net, not so much other hams to talk to! For this reason I would not want to see this become too popular, at least not anywhere below the microwave bands.
Legally, at least in the US you cannot communicate anything via ham radio in which you or your employer have a pecuniary interest. I'm not sure how browsing a web page that includes ads violates either of those, unless maybe it is your company's homepage. The FCC has even ruled in the past that incidental commercial activity (like using an autopatch to order yourself a pizza) is ok.
However, many hams do take a stricter view of the law than the law itself and would probably be quick to get on and tell you so. This in large part no doubt comes from another fact of life. Bandwidth is limited. If Ham radio became seen as a viable method for wireless internet it could easily become overcrowded with people who aren't even interested in talking to one another or any of the other traditional uses for ham radio. It would just be an internet gateway. Would the licensing requirement prevent this? Probably not as the entry level license really isn't that hard to get anymore. Also, once it became popular for this use people would probably just ignore the licensing requirement anyway. That is what happened with CB, leading the FCC to eventually give up and make CB unlicensed.
The encryption limitation is also a valid issue. I'm not sure it is so completely insurmountable though. The law (in the US) is that 'codes and cyphers' may not be used to intentionally obscure the meaning of a transmission. Most hams interperet this as meaning 'no encryption'. I'm not sure that is really what the law is saying though. If 'codes and cyphers' are completely taboo then why even menton the 'to obscure the meaning of' part? I'm thinking that a public/private key encryption scheme where the public key is transmitted in the clear as a part of the transmission (or at least every 10 minutes along with the callsign) shouldn't violate this law. Such a scheme wouldn't allow you any anonymity nor would it allow any private conversations. It would however allow you to prove that you are who you say you are. That alone would make ordering your pizza 'or anything else' safe and secure so long as you had previously put your credit card info on file with the company you are ordering from using some other method.
Of course, this is just my take on things and IANAL!
Really, I wouldn't want to see this take off in popularity, at least not on the MF-UHF bands where the majority of ham radio traffic currently resides. Everybody want's internet access, the faster the better. There just isn't that kind of bandwidth available, it would destroy ham radio without even making that much of a dent in the demand for internet access. On the other hand, there are microwave ham bands that are limited to line of site and as far as I can tell are only really ever used by hams in a few small geographical regions and then only for very sporadic experimentation. If some hams set up internet gateways there I'm not sure it would hurt anything.
As a side note though, I have always thought there should be an unlicensed, open, free-for-all band. A band where the only two rules are any bleedover to frequencies outside the band must be very small (such that they would fit under part 15 rules for unintentional radiators) and you can't expose others to unsafe levels of RF (imagining killowatts into an antenna mounted next to a busy sidewalk for example). I think expected violation of that first rule is one of the reasons we do not have such a band. I'd just make the penalties high, including large fines which could then be used to fund enforcement.
Obviously interference within the band would be rampant and there would be no grounds for anyone to remove anyone else that interferes with them. The barrier for entry however would be near zero. You want to be a broadcaster, go ahead and just do it. You want to talk further than CB allows but w/o a license, go ahead and try. Once you get tired of dealing with all the interference you can go get a license for a 'real' band. It would probably be an entertaining band just to have a rece
Why should we care what their motivation is? If the money helps improve my future or the future of one or more of my loved ones then why should I care why they did it? If it doesn't then well.. it was their money any way I didn't expect to benefit from it yesterday! And no, it doesn't matter what I think of how they got the money. They already had it even before making this announcement. To me this just means that I MIGHT some day benefit from their fortunes. That's a win as I see it!
Besides, they are real life human beings, not cartoon characters. I have no doubt that their motivations are complex with a mixture of seeking personal gain and helping others and probably in several ways for both. If I'm honest about it I don't think I ever do much of anything for only one reason. Do any of you?
If we were talking about civil rights, prohibition or some other popular cause you might have a point there. If anybody believes thay are going to make a difference in trademark law by simply disobeying a court they are only going to cause pain for themselves. If you want change in this area you need to convince the public, both that you are right AND that this is actually an issue worth fighting for. Then... if lawmakers still don't get the message maybe somebody simply disobeying the law will get some media attention followed by public outrage and some change.
Until that day comes (and it isn't coming, not for this kind of issue) simply disobeying is only going to leave you bankrupt and possibly in jail. It will not help to bring about change. Writing your congressmen (a lot), not voting back in the ones who created this mess (which probably means voting third party) and informing others about the issues are the only ways you can help bring change. Sacrificing your livelihood and freedom by ignoring the judge isn't going to do it. As they lock you away your friends and family will be the only ones to know your story or care.
That's like saying good thing nobody ever wins the lottery or good thing nobody ever gets hit by lighting.
Laws are declared unconstitutional only at the Supreme Court level. The percentage of cases that even make it that high is tiny. Even if you get that far (statistics say you will not), right or wrong the judges may not interperet the constitution the same way you do.
If you are already in trouble for breaking a law which may be unconstitutional anyway, then yeah, try your best to get it taken care of in the courts. If you just want to change a bad law... there are much better ways than intentionaly breaking it just to go fight it in court.
Ultimately I think about a 3-hour work week is what the world is going to need. The alternative is going to be massive unemployment. What work do we really need to get done? Mainly farming and manufacturing. In that order. Both of these require far less labor than they did in the past due to technology. This trend is only going to accelerate. So far the sollution has been to just consume more. All that is really getting us is fat, in debt and filling our landfills.
We are going to have to shift people away from farming and manufacturing into other industries (as has been happening). But those industries don't have a use for all those workers either, not at a 40-hour work week and certainly not at the 80+ hours many factory workers have been acustomed to.
Is working less so bad? What has mankind been striving for in developing all this technology anyway? I hope it's not all just for more throw-away cell phones!
Unfortunately now that we have globalization this is a change that must occur everywhere at once to be successful. I don't see how this can happen when we still have developing nations where people are willing to work all the hours their bodies can push out just to get by and developed nations with a work ethic that was developed more to win a world war than anything applicable to today.
How just the legal system is has nothing to do with it! Their job is to uphold the law! If the law is really bad and the judge is a good person then he/she might try to lessen the impact by selecting a less harsh punishment but that is about the best you can hope for. It's called "Separation of Powers". It's not within the judge's responsibility or even authority to make the law. He/She is there to uphold the law. At the upper levels this may involve some interperetation where the written law is unclear but it does not involve changing it!
If you want to get a law change petition the legislative branch, not the judicial! Sure, protest. Do that to get others on your side. You need support when your legislators are elected. Show them they will get more votes in the next election by seeing things your way. Yes, protesting may land you in jail for a bit. Sometimes that's the price to be paid for getting change. Don't expect the judge to take pitty and change the law for you though!
Spend some time in jail for protesting the law you dislike if you have to but don't go for breaking it!
What? Since when do judges even have the authority to declare a law unjust? They are there to judge wether or not you broke it and/or determine the apropriate punishment. It doesn't matter if the judge agrees with the law or not he/she is there to uphold it. the judge might be able to lessen the impact of a bad law by handing out minimum sentences but that's about it. It's the legislature's job to actually make the law.
After which he would check the box stating he has been convicted of a felony on every job application he ever fills out. Even fast food doesn't hire people once they do that. His best bet at future employment would be cutting up old asbestos in some scrap yard somewhere for less than minimum wage under the table.
All because he violated a TOS?
Give the user information? It would never get passed marketing. Even Linux desktops are dumbing down these days. Doom!
That is only true if the progress is based on time. If it's based on data up/downloaded/processed/etc... then it would never have to go backwards. Of course, it could speed up/slow down which might also annoy the user who is really more interested in time then anything. I think the best answer to that is to also display the current speed which data is being processed. That way the user can see that yes, 5% took less time a minute ago then the current 5% but it's because something slowed down. It isn't in the software's control.
I think a better solution is to display the progress bar based on % of data processed and have text which indicates that same percentage, current speed, and estimated remaining time. That estimated remaining time would jump up and down but IF the user actually thinks about it they should be able to see the reason why by watching what the speed does.
It seems to me that is what I remember browsers doing when they indicated download progress years ago. They probably removed this info, dumbed things down because of marketing.
I never said anything was good for them! I'm saying the particular mistakes they made are all too common in this society and coddling the 'victims' is counterproductive.
Just creating a compromising digital picture of yourself, unless you are entering the porn industry and are aware plus willing to accept any issues this will create for you in this society is mistake number one.
Then, putting them on a computer connected to the internet, mistake number two.
Whoever they actually meant to share the original pictures with (which no doubt was the purpose of one and two), that is mistake number three. At breakup time many of them were going on websites any way no doubt.
Giving more pictures to the scumbag that hacked their accounts! Huge mistake number four. What did they expect next? Did they think a guy who would do that would have the integrity to honour any promises he made about not sharing them, leaving them alone, etc... Really?!?
Not immediately contacting FB to get their accounts turned off, there is a fifth mistake.
At this point it's almost like they were enjoying the ride! They could have ended it at any time!
I'm sure there are some more mistakes in there somewhere, really weak passwords maybe?
Do I think pointing this out and calling them stupid is 'justified as being good for them'? No! I never said that! I am saying it is good for everybody else! When wolves or big cats attack a hurd of larger animals and take out the weak ones it is good for the herd. It is NOT good for the weak animal that was eaten!
Please don't get me wrong. I'm being figurative here. I am not saying these people should be eaten! Nor am I saying their lives should in any way be over, even figuratively. Given time, maybe a name change and significant makeovers so they aren't too easily recognisable hopefully they can get past this. I hope they can grow (a lot) and live happy lives from now on.
But pretending they aren't at fault too.... No! Look at all the crap that has been in the news for the last several years involving sexting! Have these people been living under rocks? Everyone should know better by now but they don't. Instead these things come up more and more. That is frustrating. I want to see people learn from these mistakes and the trends go back towards not doing these things. Instead I just hear about it happening more and more. I'd like ot see that change before my own kids are old enough I have to worry about them.
Ok... </soap box>
And? Did you read this part? "I think we can all also agree that Kazaryan is the only one involved who set out to harm others (in a sense) and is the only one deserving of legal punishment."
By all means punish this guy, teach him a lesson and make things safer for everyone else.
All I'm saying that the victims did a stupid thing and can blame themselves (as well as Kazaryan). Regardless of whatever mistakes we all make in our own lives labeling these people as 'poor victims' and pretending they had no part in their own problems only removes the lesson that both themselves and others should learn (or really, should have already known but it's too late for that)
No, on second thought, though the lesson is important it's not really about that. It's about truth. These people made dumb choices that certainly did lead to their own problems. They absolutely should be angry with Kazaryan and he should be punished (though I'm not sold on over 100 years imprisonment). They should be angry at themselves too. It's hard, it's not nice but it's reality. Painting them as victims, uninvolved in creating their own situations is just not accepting reality.
That's probably why the source was named right in the title line.
Not to nipick but nobody substitued the word "Germany" for "US", the grandparent substituted "US" for "Germany". It was quite the opposite of what you say makes you feel queasy actually so I guess you are feeling really good right about now.