"I don't follow the latest interpretations of the Bible that closely, but Jesus said that lusting after someone else's wife was morally equivalent to adultery, so the strict biblical interpretation would consider all of these things equivalent to sex."
So a single person lusting for another single person is morally equivalent to adultery? I would seem to think it is not so at all... if nothing else, their lust is not explicitly a betrayal.
Furthermore, Jesus said a lot of things similar to that with the intent of showing that WE ARE ALL SINNERS... even, perhaps especially, those of us who pretend we aren't. "Good" is not merely determined by specific (in)actions, it is also defined by our thoughts, wishes and motives.
Above all else, Jesus' ministry was about humility, forgiveness, compassion and respect... even for those with whom we do not agree. How many "Christians" actually seem to believe in THAT?
In this case it most certainly is. In fact, it's the only type of security possible. User A is trying to view site B without being detected by monitor C... the data must, inevitably, travel from B to A. If it also goes through D, E, F, G, H and I, and somewhere along the way appears to deliver to J, then A is somewhat less likely to get caught.
Unless you mean to say that Heap is only effective at obfuscating connections between points because nobody can see the code, in which case you're probably right.
If it makes you feel better: I have no problem believing that your penis super-duper-fabulously gay, and I congratulate you on having the courage to tell everyone about it... it takes a big, burly, hairy, leather-clad man to tell the world something that personal and socially stigmatized.
No, it's not. You do not assume that the accused is innocent by assuming that the accuser is guilty.
It was, not so long ago, a very effective defense in rape cases to simply claim that the victim was "loose". The theory went that since "loose" women always consented to sex, it couldn't have been raped. Prostitutes were, effectively, legally unable to be rape victims at all.
Having "pirated" games that I did, in fact, purchase beforehand simply because the pirated version removed overzealous DRM, or fixed idiotic bugs, and doing so was easier than working with my legitimate copy... It happens.
I'm sure that's not what happens the majority of the time, of course, but the number is clearly a non-zero value.
Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin, and the whole coin is morally neutral. The problem comes when you let greedy, sociopathic tyrants flip the coin... then it becomes a matter of which terrible outcome you get, not whether you get one.
"Though, how do we write it? This is the sad thing - Apple's candy-ass gen-Y astroturfing has led us into thinking that trademarks are normal English, and correct English regarding proper nouns looks "wrong"."
Correct English regarding proper nouns would, at best, lead us to IPhone. It is well established that proper nouns can and routinely do have capitalization which in a regular noun would be completely inappropriate. Your argument that some universal law of English grammar does override proper nouns and force them into some sort of standardized capitalization is, on its face, weak... not least because no such rule exists.
That does not, however, make "iPhone" a good product name, and makes "iPod" (which doesn't even hint at what the device does) downright silly.
One of the big reasons is because work involving computers is highly overvalued, and teachers are highly undervalued. I know that won't be a popular POV on Slashdot, but it's sadly true. Anyone who is even remotely competent as a programmer can pull down amounts of money that make $20,000 - $35,000 a year to start look, well, laughable. The benefits are pretty good, and the vacation time is pretty much unbeatable, but anyone able to understand '>' just isn't likely to bite. Heck, they'd be better off working as the school's IT guy than teaching CS there... a LOT better off.
And it doesn't help matters that CS isn't one of the Big 4, and as such gets shafted right along with other subjects like art and music. One of the best parts about being a teacher is job security and stability... but if you can't even count on that beyond the next time a road needs to be repaved or a school committee member's child comes down with acute spend-a-gazillion-dollars-to-accommodate-me syndrome, then it loses a lot of appeal for decent potential candidates.
For the record, I don't think this is exclusive to CS... journalism, political science, psychology, engineering, and a few others give very little incentive for graduates to take jobs in education. The rewards available from an entry-level job with a basic degree, and the competition for such jobs, simply conspire against it for all but the least competent individuals.
Another reason, and one that probably doesn't help the former, is that we are just now beginning to see a generation of parents, educators, administrators, politicians, etc. who are actually in agreement on the value of technology education. That's the way the power balance is shifting, and demographics ensure that it will inevitably shift completely, but this kind of cultural change takes time. Even now there are a lot of people making decisions about education that will affect students for years to come, who sincerely believe that penmanship is a highly valuable skill warranting a great deal of education and practice (and not just because it is a good exercise for building fine-motor control and hand-eye coordination)... moving ITC beyond "how to open Excel" is just not going to happen overnight.
Re:brazil and india
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I guess they'll have to settle for doing quite well in 2 rather large, rapidly expanding markets... poor them, missing out on the rather large but slowly shrinking Western European and US markets. I'm sure they're terribly upset about having so much growth potential at their door step, and at not needing to "break into" demographics that other companies are just starting to realize they real should be targeting. I'll bet it keeps them up at night thinking about what a terrible failure that's been.
First of all, the preamble is not legally binding. It is an introduction, flavor text as it were. While reading it gives some insight to how the framers meant it, and helps to establish context, it is not to be confused with the actually meaningful parts which follow.
The Constitution proper outlines the structure for the United States of America, and more specifically for the Federal Government thereof. The first ten amendments, AKA The Bill of Rights, place restrictions on what laws can be passed by the Federal government (and most of these were, subsequently, imposed onto the individual States as well), and what actions it can take, insofar as dealing with civil liberties.
Nowhere in either part of this does it specify that the Federal Government may do the things it is prohibited from doing when a) acting outside of the United States, or b) dealing with non-citizens. That is to say, by my reading of the document, the US government is no more able to infringe upon the free speech of a Mexican citizen than a US citizen, and that it is no more able to violate the Rights of the Accused for an Iraqi citizen than a US citizen.
You did cite a specific passage stating that Habeas Corpus may be suspended, although arguably that particular line refers to suspending it altogether, ie. declaring martial law, rather than on a case-by case basis. more relevant would be the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." which actually DOES allow the government to treat military prisoners differently than civilian ones. Of course the 6th amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." does not. And given Article VI's clause on treaties: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." pretty much means that the various treaties on treatment of POWS etc. are given weight equal to the Constitution itself.
Much like our "terrible" courts are, overall, pretty much the best system in the world?
It's very easy to find anecdotes of corruption and inefficiency, but as California learned (and announced) not too long ago when their sweeping line audit system produced only a few million dollars in possible savings (a paltry sum, when viewed as a fraction of the entire budget) from eliminated waste, the plural of anecdote is not data.
One project is obviously full of nepotism and waste, 15 others are obviously not... one judge makes a famously bad decision, hundreds of others make good ones.
Among the list of things not included in the Constitution: Geographic limits to where the rules apply.
A crazy, anti-American pinko hippie like myself just might read the Constitution as saying "the government will not do these things" and insist that there are no exceptions based on where they try to do them, why they try to do them, or who they try to do them too. This gets patriotic God-fearing Americans who really honor and cherish the Constitution a bit pissy, because they would prefer the government to torture "the terrorists" and make people disappear when it is in the interests of "national security"... so they tell their congresscritters to try passing laws to make people like me keep our damn Freedom-hating mouths shut.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some more soldiers to kill with my desire to get them out of an unnecessary and unjust war.
Is the most blatant of the many ad hominem attacks.
I tried, thanks for noticing.
Corporations are solely profit driven, people are not. Do not confuse the motivations of the people working for the corporation with the corporation. Just because ASCAP executives argue to extend IP for profit reasons does not mean they dont want to improve society. The idea that they dont enjoy (read value) culture is ridiculous. Though I can understand its easier to attack the person and the sensationalist aspect clearly gets you more karma.
I'm not sure I see what relevance their personal, private feelings on the matter have in this situation. They could be running a pirate top 40 station while they're off the clock, and it still doesn't change the organization's methods or motives in any meaningful way... ergo, it doesn't change my opinion of them in any meaningful way, either.
ASCAP thinks a system that pays people to produce culture produces more/better culture.
Holy shit, you're serious... Look, I hate to break it to you, but no, they don't. ASCAP favors a system where they make money, and they think a system where they get paid more money is better than a system where they don't. The problem is that when a bunch of people who don't really produce anything (music industry executives) and make shit tons of money for it cry out that they can't afford an extra week in Cabo on their 3rd yacht until next quarter, normal people's overwhelming response is something to the effect of "go fuck yourself with hacksaw"... so instead they complain that it will be the end of Western Civilization if people extrapolate modern commodity technology to the logical end. A few of their arguments might have some merit, at least in the (very) short term, but for the most part they boil down to "if we do things differently, things won't stay the same, " which is a pretty lame argument for just about anything, if you think about it.
"suppose the government wants to raise taxes on energy used by large data centers, and Google says, "Well if you do that, we'll be forced to increase our service fees..." Does that situation seem far fetched to you?"
As an avowed liberal: in what universe is the government averse to spending more money for identical results? That's pretty much how they roll. Heck, in your scenario, I'd expect some of the officials involved to be in tight with Google and support it on the grounds that the user charge is actually a percentage above cost rather than a flat fee (eg. profits go up proportionately to costs). Funneling tax money into their wallets is pretty much what a lot of these guys do for a living.
The only thing locking you into Apple products is not wanting to use something else... at any time you are free to put down an iPod and pick up the alternative of your choice.
The "problem" is that the warden will let you purchase any number of nifty furnishings at fairly reasonable prices, but won't let you take them outside. You can stay in your self-imposed prison with your shiny things, or you can walk through the front door to freedom without them. I guess that would make it less of a prison, and more of a voluntary admission mental institution.
Full disclosure: I don't like Apple, I don't like Apple's products, I don't normally defend either, I am not an apologist or shill or fanboi.
My scientific study has concluded that nobody plans to buy an iPhone ever, and in fact, nobody even owns one.
Do you object on the basis of how I conducted my study? or because you like the iPhone? or simply on the basis that my results are CLEARLY crap?
In a perfect world where nobody ever spewed utter nonsense, it would be reasonable to evaluate every single claim objectively based on the available facts... in the real world, there isn't enough time the day to go without simply dismissing obvious BS out of hand.
Lolwut? He actually gave a contextually valid, well-thought explanation of what would legitimately differentiate 2 groups of players in the same MMOG, to which your response was some BS about game mechanics.
Maybe people don't like the pirates because their way of enjoying the game is attacking and annoying other players (AKA griefing). Group A hates Group C because they are a distraction from their progress toward perfection, and Group B hates Group C because "seriously dude, leave me alone, what's your problem, just let me play the game!"
People from Group A or Group B might enjoy themselves in Group C, depending on how that group operates internally.
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't follow the latest interpretations of the Bible that closely, but Jesus said that lusting after someone else's wife was morally equivalent to adultery, so the strict biblical interpretation would consider all of these things equivalent to sex."
So a single person lusting for another single person is morally equivalent to adultery? I would seem to think it is not so at all... if nothing else, their lust is not explicitly a betrayal.
Furthermore, Jesus said a lot of things similar to that with the intent of showing that WE ARE ALL SINNERS... even, perhaps especially, those of us who pretend we aren't. "Good" is not merely determined by specific (in)actions, it is also defined by our thoughts, wishes and motives.
Above all else, Jesus' ministry was about humility, forgiveness, compassion and respect... even for those with whom we do not agree. How many "Christians" actually seem to believe in THAT?
No, he never got around to inventing one...
In this case it most certainly is. In fact, it's the only type of security possible. User A is trying to view site B without being detected by monitor C... the data must, inevitably, travel from B to A. If it also goes through D, E, F, G, H and I, and somewhere along the way appears to deliver to J, then A is somewhat less likely to get caught.
Unless you mean to say that Heap is only effective at obfuscating connections between points because nobody can see the code, in which case you're probably right.
If it makes you feel better: I have no problem believing that your penis super-duper-fabulously gay, and I congratulate you on having the courage to tell everyone about it... it takes a big, burly, hairy, leather-clad man to tell the world something that personal and socially stigmatized.
You're welcome.
No, it's not. You do not assume that the accused is innocent by assuming that the accuser is guilty.
It was, not so long ago, a very effective defense in rape cases to simply claim that the victim was "loose". The theory went that since "loose" women always consented to sex, it couldn't have been raped. Prostitutes were, effectively, legally unable to be rape victims at all.
"It's like any other reality show, just on a boat."
Dear T-Pain,
You'd be a perfect addition to our show. We think the kids would just love it. Let us know what you think.
XOXO,
The Discovery Channel
P.S.
Are you friends with Xzibit? Because we've got a show about trucks that he could really revamp...
Dude, it's in Idle. That's kind of what it's for. Relax.
Having "pirated" games that I did, in fact, purchase beforehand simply because the pirated version removed overzealous DRM, or fixed idiotic bugs, and doing so was easier than working with my legitimate copy... It happens.
I'm sure that's not what happens the majority of the time, of course, but the number is clearly a non-zero value.
Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin, and the whole coin is morally neutral. The problem comes when you let greedy, sociopathic tyrants flip the coin... then it becomes a matter of which terrible outcome you get, not whether you get one.
"Though, how do we write it? This is the sad thing - Apple's candy-ass gen-Y astroturfing has led us into thinking that trademarks are normal English, and correct English regarding proper nouns looks "wrong"."
Correct English regarding proper nouns would, at best, lead us to IPhone. It is well established that proper nouns can and routinely do have capitalization which in a regular noun would be completely inappropriate. Your argument that some universal law of English grammar does override proper nouns and force them into some sort of standardized capitalization is, on its face, weak... not least because no such rule exists.
That does not, however, make "iPhone" a good product name, and makes "iPod" (which doesn't even hint at what the device does) downright silly.
One of the big reasons is because work involving computers is highly overvalued, and teachers are highly undervalued. I know that won't be a popular POV on Slashdot, but it's sadly true. Anyone who is even remotely competent as a programmer can pull down amounts of money that make $20,000 - $35,000 a year to start look, well, laughable. The benefits are pretty good, and the vacation time is pretty much unbeatable, but anyone able to understand '>' just isn't likely to bite. Heck, they'd be better off working as the school's IT guy than teaching CS there... a LOT better off.
And it doesn't help matters that CS isn't one of the Big 4, and as such gets shafted right along with other subjects like art and music. One of the best parts about being a teacher is job security and stability... but if you can't even count on that beyond the next time a road needs to be repaved or a school committee member's child comes down with acute spend-a-gazillion-dollars-to-accommodate-me syndrome, then it loses a lot of appeal for decent potential candidates.
For the record, I don't think this is exclusive to CS... journalism, political science, psychology, engineering, and a few others give very little incentive for graduates to take jobs in education. The rewards available from an entry-level job with a basic degree, and the competition for such jobs, simply conspire against it for all but the least competent individuals.
Another reason, and one that probably doesn't help the former, is that we are just now beginning to see a generation of parents, educators, administrators, politicians, etc. who are actually in agreement on the value of technology education. That's the way the power balance is shifting, and demographics ensure that it will inevitably shift completely, but this kind of cultural change takes time. Even now there are a lot of people making decisions about education that will affect students for years to come, who sincerely believe that penmanship is a highly valuable skill warranting a great deal of education and practice (and not just because it is a good exercise for building fine-motor control and hand-eye coordination)... moving ITC beyond "how to open Excel" is just not going to happen overnight.
I guess they'll have to settle for doing quite well in 2 rather large, rapidly expanding markets... poor them, missing out on the rather large but slowly shrinking Western European and US markets. I'm sure they're terribly upset about having so much growth potential at their door step, and at not needing to "break into" demographics that other companies are just starting to realize they real should be targeting. I'll bet it keeps them up at night thinking about what a terrible failure that's been.
Everyone who doesn't have first post, yet insinuates they do regardless?
First of all, the preamble is not legally binding. It is an introduction, flavor text as it were. While reading it gives some insight to how the framers meant it, and helps to establish context, it is not to be confused with the actually meaningful parts which follow.
The Constitution proper outlines the structure for the United States of America, and more specifically for the Federal Government thereof. The first ten amendments, AKA The Bill of Rights, place restrictions on what laws can be passed by the Federal government (and most of these were, subsequently, imposed onto the individual States as well), and what actions it can take, insofar as dealing with civil liberties.
Nowhere in either part of this does it specify that the Federal Government may do the things it is prohibited from doing when a) acting outside of the United States, or b) dealing with non-citizens. That is to say, by my reading of the document, the US government is no more able to infringe upon the free speech of a Mexican citizen than a US citizen, and that it is no more able to violate the Rights of the Accused for an Iraqi citizen than a US citizen.
You did cite a specific passage stating that Habeas Corpus may be suspended, although arguably that particular line refers to suspending it altogether, ie. declaring martial law, rather than on a case-by case basis. more relevant would be the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." which actually DOES allow the government to treat military prisoners differently than civilian ones. Of course the 6th amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." does not. And given Article VI's clause on treaties: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." pretty much means that the various treaties on treatment of POWS etc. are given weight equal to the Constitution itself.
So what was that about reading the Constitution?
Much like our "terrible" courts are, overall, pretty much the best system in the world?
It's very easy to find anecdotes of corruption and inefficiency, but as California learned (and announced) not too long ago when their sweeping line audit system produced only a few million dollars in possible savings (a paltry sum, when viewed as a fraction of the entire budget) from eliminated waste, the plural of anecdote is not data.
One project is obviously full of nepotism and waste, 15 others are obviously not... one judge makes a famously bad decision, hundreds of others make good ones.
Among the list of things not included in the Constitution: Geographic limits to where the rules apply.
A crazy, anti-American pinko hippie like myself just might read the Constitution as saying "the government will not do these things" and insist that there are no exceptions based on where they try to do them, why they try to do them, or who they try to do them too. This gets patriotic God-fearing Americans who really honor and cherish the Constitution a bit pissy, because they would prefer the government to torture "the terrorists" and make people disappear when it is in the interests of "national security"... so they tell their congresscritters to try passing laws to make people like me keep our damn Freedom-hating mouths shut.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some more soldiers to kill with my desire to get them out of an unnecessary and unjust war.
Straw man
How so?
Is the most blatant of the many ad hominem attacks.
I tried, thanks for noticing.
Corporations are solely profit driven, people are not. Do not confuse the motivations of the people working for the corporation with the corporation. Just because ASCAP executives argue to extend IP for profit reasons does not mean they dont want to improve society. The idea that they dont enjoy (read value) culture is ridiculous. Though I can understand its easier to attack the person and the sensationalist aspect clearly gets you more karma.
I'm not sure I see what relevance their personal, private feelings on the matter have in this situation. They could be running a pirate top 40 station while they're off the clock, and it still doesn't change the organization's methods or motives in any meaningful way... ergo, it doesn't change my opinion of them in any meaningful way, either.
The Volt is not an import, the Leaf is. We're talking about greenies from California here folks.
They both value culture.
Haha, good one!
ASCAP thinks a system that pays people to produce culture produces more/better culture.
Holy shit, you're serious... Look, I hate to break it to you, but no, they don't. ASCAP favors a system where they make money, and they think a system where they get paid more money is better than a system where they don't. The problem is that when a bunch of people who don't really produce anything (music industry executives) and make shit tons of money for it cry out that they can't afford an extra week in Cabo on their 3rd yacht until next quarter, normal people's overwhelming response is something to the effect of "go fuck yourself with hacksaw"... so instead they complain that it will be the end of Western Civilization if people extrapolate modern commodity technology to the logical end. A few of their arguments might have some merit, at least in the (very) short term, but for the most part they boil down to "if we do things differently, things won't stay the same, " which is a pretty lame argument for just about anything, if you think about it.
"suppose the government wants to raise taxes on energy used by large data centers, and Google says, "Well if you do that, we'll be forced to increase our service fees..." Does that situation seem far fetched to you?"
As an avowed liberal: in what universe is the government averse to spending more money for identical results? That's pretty much how they roll. Heck, in your scenario, I'd expect some of the officials involved to be in tight with Google and support it on the grounds that the user charge is actually a percentage above cost rather than a flat fee (eg. profits go up proportionately to costs). Funneling tax money into their wallets is pretty much what a lot of these guys do for a living.
A bit over-dramatic?
The only thing locking you into Apple products is not wanting to use something else... at any time you are free to put down an iPod and pick up the alternative of your choice.
The "problem" is that the warden will let you purchase any number of nifty furnishings at fairly reasonable prices, but won't let you take them outside. You can stay in your self-imposed prison with your shiny things, or you can walk through the front door to freedom without them. I guess that would make it less of a prison, and more of a voluntary admission mental institution.
Full disclosure: I don't like Apple, I don't like Apple's products, I don't normally defend either, I am not an apologist or shill or fanboi.
My scientific study has concluded that nobody plans to buy an iPhone ever, and in fact, nobody even owns one.
Do you object on the basis of how I conducted my study? or because you like the iPhone? or simply on the basis that my results are CLEARLY crap?
In a perfect world where nobody ever spewed utter nonsense, it would be reasonable to evaluate every single claim objectively based on the available facts... in the real world, there isn't enough time the day to go without simply dismissing obvious BS out of hand.
Lolwut? He actually gave a contextually valid, well-thought explanation of what would legitimately differentiate 2 groups of players in the same MMOG, to which your response was some BS about game mechanics.
Maybe people don't like the pirates because their way of enjoying the game is attacking and annoying other players (AKA griefing). Group A hates Group C because they are a distraction from their progress toward perfection, and Group B hates Group C because "seriously dude, leave me alone, what's your problem, just let me play the game!"
People from Group A or Group B might enjoy themselves in Group C, depending on how that group operates internally.
But he LOVES foot washing.
It doesn't Firefox's live bookmark RSS interface, which I prefer to every other way of doing RSS I've encountered.
Oh, and Firefox doesn't spy on you or interfere with anonymity (at least not that anyone knows about).
I guess if somebody put that feature into SRWare Iron I would switch (back, again) in an instant.