The question is one of protection. No one has filed a complaint against these individals getting this response. Instead, this is proactive. Being proactive to offer dubious protection for people outside the country is not for their government to do. Let alone that this will hurt actual citizens of Germany.
Certainly if someone were in Germany and arranged a "hit" against somebody out-of-country, I would still expect that person to be arrested on murder charges.
Let's say Germany was at war with France, and someone in Germany went to France and killed a civilian there, should the German still be arrested (by Germany)?
There is a three-fold reason we arrest murders of non-ctizens:
1) Because of the unwritten agreement with other countries that they will protect our citizens from murder. 2) Because a person who murders is likely not caring of nationality, and thus is a danger. 3) Because we want to encourage visitors and offer safety.
These do not apply to the case at hand, because (respectively)
1) CP is not illegal in all countries, and the laws where it si illegal vary greatly. 2) There is rarely an actual victim. There is no known link betwen viewing CP online and actual activity with "real" minors. Indeed, the evidense shows the opposite. 3) The person is doing it online, so there is no safety to be worried about.
We're in a sad state of affairs. Germany here is no longer protecting its own citizens, it's preventing it's citizens from viewing things online elsewhere. Who are they protecting?
The children are likely not German, so they're not protecting the german children. The servers are not in Germany, so they are not policing they're own internet. They are telling people what they cannot do.
What is the reason for banning viewing these things? The usual reason is protecting children from being exploited, but one, these are not German children, and two, there is no proof they were even exploited.
They are literally telling people what they cannot do in their own homes even when it doesn't hurt anyone.
It's only a matter of time before children are carted away and a young age to be protected from the evils of the world. The Calvinists were just a couple centuries ahead of their time.
Killed a Martian? Do we still have the leftovers? Maybe it's her!
If she's found, rush like mad, Put her on a launching pad, Down at Cape Canaveral, And shoot my cutie, My supersonic beauty, Send me back my Martian gal.
Re:I've been using vi for so long...
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 1
I think in vi.
Is that when your in editing mode or writing mode?
When somebody corrects you do you ask them to shift modes first?
When editing, commands just happen like thoughts. They are so ingrained in my brain I don't even remember the actual key sequences.
That's called instinct. van der Hoop covers it in detail when disagreeing with Jung on the Sensory function.
Vi is the ultimate editor, for one main reason. It's a modal editor, so commands can be mnemonic.
As long as you remember to shift modes.
With editors like emacs, you're always having to hit ^X before commands
Obviously you have never used emacs for more than three or seconds because the only thin you tried doing was exit.
To add a new line (which requires who-knows-what in vi) is as simple as hitting enter, no ^X or anything other than the simple thing.
or with MS word you're always having to lift your hand off the keyboard to move the silly mouse around.
That is the most absurd thing you have said as of yet. Microsoft is *extremely* keyboard friendly, and almost never requires the mouse. Not only is everything easy as pie in Word, the shortcuts are usually consistant with all MS's application.
If you used the mouse with Word, you haven't actually tried not to. I mean, all the keyboard sequences are on the menus. How could you miss them?
With vi, you don't need a steenking mouse.
Actually, you *can't* iuse the mouse. At least in Word you can should you choose to.
Your hands never leave the keyboard. And commands make sense and don't require that you hit some yucky control sequence to initiate.
So shifting modes is any better than a control sequence?
You have a preference. You prefer shifting modes to learning menus/sequences. That's perfectly ok, but so is the opposite approach. And, if you want me to respect your subjective opinion, you've got to respect other people's opinions as well.
Does the sender not enjoy constitutional protection? (Assuming source is from US land)
1) If the sender is not a US citizen, it does not matter. 2) It would be the sender that would need to complain. (Just a point.) 3) I meant it to be used with the other points.
From TFS: The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces (emphasis mine ~R) protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. You have a 3 digit UID, and you still don't read even the summary?
1) I skimmed the linked article itself. 2) I was commenting ont he comment more than on the story.
Anyway, a "signing statement" is for the President to declare his intent in signing the law. (Whether that is constituional in itself has a long history). Therefore, it will always contradict the law itself. Nothing new here. It's just a more acceptable version than the line-item veto. (Not that it should be acceptable, but people seem to accept it.)
He's not changing those rules, the People of the United States (via their elected representatives) passed a law explicitly stating that he cannot do what his signing statement says he intends to do.
The people did not make the law, they sent it to the president for his signing. And unless the congress has enough to override a veto (doubtful) the president would have vetoed it. Instead he signed it and added a caveat.
He is directly stating that he will ignore those safeguards
On occasion.
on top of a law passed to restate the will of the people that he follow them.
And giving it with that very law is the most appropriate thing to do. That is how signing statements are always used. By all presidents that have used them.
What is reasonable about a President saying directly that he intends not to follow a law the people thought it important enough to re-issue?
What is it with an article that decides to ignore the long standing history of an act (aigning statement) and specifically points out the most recent one as if he creatred it anew?
What safeguards do you expect will be followed by a man who says he will not follow them?
As i wrote in my orignal reply, none. I just said if there would be no abuses, it would be ok, but that i didn't believe there would be no abuses.
Until he does this, this is irrelevant. That he could declare Martial Law does not grant him those powers before he does so. If/When he does, then this will likely trigger a very serious response from the previously apathetic citizens; this response is the risk and price of taking those powers. He doesn't gain the powers unless that risk is taken and that price paid.
IIRC, martial law does not have to be declared. The president lerely needs to excercise that power. Article 1, Section 9 states: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. ". As long as "public safety" requires it, it can be done, and that is exactly the case here (as presented by the president).
`No, i mean the Window Managers. Applications would be nice as well, but the WMs are more important. Escpecially things like starting the applications and moving them around.''
Could you elaborate on that? I have the feeling there are solutions for the problems you have encountered, but without knowing specifics, it's hard to be sure.
"like starting the applications and moving them around."
``Considering Windows started before the mouse was commonplace, keyboarding was a requirement. It's a wionder why X isn;t like that too.''
X does nothing besides providing a protocol and a set of APIs for accessing input devices and displays. Applications, including window managers, are free to implement as few or as many keyboard shortcuts as they like. I use X every day, and I pretty much only use the mouse to click links.
I understand that. I guess what i mean is it would be nice if X would have APIs for a set of keyboard shortcuts, that both the WMs and the applications could use.
In Windows, i rarely use the mouse if i am not browsing or gaming, or just leaning back. There's hardly i think i cannot do with the keyboard, and the keyboard is faster (when i responded (a few years back) to some hundreds of email (tech support) i saved about 4 seconds per email by keyboarding, and that was just opening, sending, and closing.)
Under X, i found most things to be not keyboardable (or at least not intuitive to me) and it was enough to make me go back to Windows.
I'm thinking of setting upa Linux box again, and this is one of the main sticking points for me.
First, thank you for quoting the fourth amendment. It is very applicable here.
I would just like to comment, that i don't think that he isn't breaking anything.
1. Mail is not your papers (it's the senders, until you accept it.) 2. Mail is given to the post office to be delivered according to the rules, and it is those rules that he is changing. 3. The keyword here is "reasonable". Assuming safe guards are in place, a search of the mail is reasonable. 4. The president can declare martial law in which case due process is suspended.
All in all, this in itself is not a Bad Thing, if it is not abused. But, i'm relatively sure it will be abused, so i hope they stop this before it gets anywhere.
If anything, we need to strengthen the fourth amendment before its loopholes become the rule.
``X (or rather, the Window Managers) still has a long way to go in that area.''
You mean the applications.
No, i mean the Window Managers. Applications would be nice as well, but the WMs are more important. Escpecially things like starting the applications and moving them around.
If the problem would be tackled, it would start with the WMs, and then move onto the applications. After using X for a while i moved back to Windows for two reasons. IE 5 crashed less than Mozilla, and keyboard shortcuts which i use extensively. And keyboard shortcuts is something MS does very well (rarely see an MS program that doesn't, one version of SQL Server didn't in the management console) and indeed has it as part of the Windows Logo Requirement.
Considering Windows started before the mouse was commonplace, keyboarding was a requirement. It's a wionder why X isn;t like that too.
For people who mostly control Office via keyboard commands, and rarely use menus and toolbars, all of the basic keyboard commands are the same.
Phew!
The menus, icons, and buttons are helpful, but keyboard commands are where Microsoft really shines. X (or rather, the Window Managers) still has a long way to go in that area. I'd actually think if MS changes the keyboard shortcuts it would be a real issue, but for the icons, people will learn them easily enough and move on.
Think about this: the only way that would matter is if there is an immobile object two seconds ahead of you. You're driving along, then mysteriously, 315 feet in front of you, something is stopped dead. What are the actual chances of this happening to any responsible, alert driver doing 70 MPH?
Simple, you're the third car in a lineup where the second car driver read your comment.
I congratulate you on the first MEANINGFUL use of the Slashdot tag system.
Heh, thanx.
Originally, my comment was different, and i meant the tag as a commentary of a joke. Then, as i started getting serious, i rearranged everything, and this came out.
We must ask for the facts sometimes, because perhaps it has lost its original meaning in the emotional charge the masses have given to it.
I remember watching the debates on the flag burning amendment. One Representative burnt a napkin with a flag on it at the podium saying that if we ban flag burning, that action would be illegal.
Regardless of the issue of flag burning, he had a point. Even those who are for the amendment don't intend it to go that so far as destroying any image resembling a flag, so perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of patriotism.
I find the same point to be applicable here. Whether stopping child porn will help protect the children or not is irrelevant, those who promote child porn bans by saying it will help, probably don't intend for it to ban all images resembling it, and they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren.
There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not. This then would become an issue of freedom. If there is no victim, and they keep to themselves, why should anyone else care. If it is because it may in the future hurt a child, again, perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren.
Of course, to get to the hidden landscape you have to go to the fake water stream, and travel forward one step, then backwards one step, while holding down the acceleration pedal, and jump towards the center of the hole.
This is pretty interesting. Having worked in an office environment, and *wanting* to wortk from home, i'm sure i couls get thing done just as well, like when i did contracting work. But this gives me someting to think about. Would i miss the camaraderie? Would it actually help? After, say, a year or two, would i still enjoy being "out of the loop"?
I have no idea, and i probably would love to find out. Regardless, it is something to think about.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it OK to harm kids from other coutries.
The question is one of protection. No one has filed a complaint against these individals getting this response. Instead, this is proactive. Being proactive to offer dubious protection for people outside the country is not for their government to do. Let alone that this will hurt actual citizens of Germany.
Certainly if someone were in Germany and arranged a "hit" against somebody out-of-country, I would still expect that person to be arrested on murder charges.
Let's say Germany was at war with France, and someone in Germany went to France and killed a civilian there, should the German still be arrested (by Germany)?
There is a three-fold reason we arrest murders of non-ctizens:
1) Because of the unwritten agreement with other countries that they will protect our citizens from murder.
2) Because a person who murders is likely not caring of nationality, and thus is a danger.
3) Because we want to encourage visitors and offer safety.
These do not apply to the case at hand, because (respectively)
1) CP is not illegal in all countries, and the laws where it si illegal vary greatly.
2) There is rarely an actual victim. There is no known link betwen viewing CP online and actual activity with "real" minors. Indeed, the evidense shows the opposite.
3) The person is doing it online, so there is no safety to be worried about.
We're in a sad state of affairs. Germany here is no longer protecting its own citizens, it's preventing it's citizens from viewing things online elsewhere. Who are they protecting?
The children are likely not German, so they're not protecting the german children.
The servers are not in Germany, so they are not policing they're own internet.
They are telling people what they cannot do.
What is the reason for banning viewing these things? The usual reason is protecting children from being exploited, but one, these are not German children, and two, there is no proof they were even exploited.
They are literally telling people what they cannot do in their own homes even when it doesn't hurt anyone.
I know, i know, thinkofthechildren.
It's only a matter of time before children are carted away and a young age to be protected from the evils of the world. The Calvinists were just a couple centuries ahead of their time.
will allow PC enthusiasts to tweak the highest levels of performance from their system
Have enthusiasts mastered performance so well that they need to tweak them _from_ the motherboard to give them a challenge?
Because programmers refuse to design, and designers refuse to program.
If only we'd just work together...
Even if Pegasus itself goes away, the indelible mark it leaves on many subsequent clients will still be here.
They should allow him, and him alone, to fly without ID.
He'll just have to prove that he is him, so that they know that he is the one that doesn't need id.
Don't forget The Career Programmer which discusses testers at length.
I think in vi.
Is that when your in editing mode or writing mode?
When somebody corrects you do you ask them to shift modes first?
When editing, commands just happen like thoughts. They are so ingrained in my brain I don't even remember the actual key sequences.
That's called instinct. van der Hoop covers it in detail when disagreeing with Jung on the Sensory function.
Vi is the ultimate editor, for one main reason. It's a modal editor, so commands can be mnemonic.
As long as you remember to shift modes.
With editors like emacs, you're always having to hit ^X before commands
Obviously you have never used emacs for more than three or seconds because the only thin you tried doing was exit.
To add a new line (which requires who-knows-what in vi) is as simple as hitting enter, no ^X or anything other than the simple thing.
or with MS word you're always having to lift your hand off the keyboard to move the silly mouse around.
That is the most absurd thing you have said as of yet. Microsoft is *extremely* keyboard friendly, and almost never requires the mouse. Not only is everything easy as pie in Word, the shortcuts are usually consistant with all MS's application.
If you used the mouse with Word, you haven't actually tried not to. I mean, all the keyboard sequences are on the menus. How could you miss them?
With vi, you don't need a steenking mouse.
Actually, you *can't* iuse the mouse. At least in Word you can should you choose to.
Your hands never leave the keyboard. And commands make sense and don't require that you hit some yucky control sequence to initiate.
So shifting modes is any better than a control sequence?
You have a preference. You prefer shifting modes to learning menus/sequences. That's perfectly ok, but so is the opposite approach. And, if you want me to respect your subjective opinion, you've got to respect other people's opinions as well.
Does the sender not enjoy constitutional protection? (Assuming source is from US land)
1) If the sender is not a US citizen, it does not matter.
2) It would be the sender that would need to complain. (Just a point.)
3) I meant it to be used with the other points.
From TFS: The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces (emphasis mine ~R) protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. You have a 3 digit UID, and you still don't read even the summary?
1) I skimmed the linked article itself.
2) I was commenting ont he comment more than on the story.
Anyway, a "signing statement" is for the President to declare his intent in signing the law. (Whether that is constituional in itself has a long history). Therefore, it will always contradict the law itself. Nothing new here. It's just a more acceptable version than the line-item veto. (Not that it should be acceptable, but people seem to accept it.)
He's not changing those rules, the People of the United States (via their elected representatives) passed a law explicitly stating that he cannot do what his signing statement says he intends to do.
The people did not make the law, they sent it to the president for his signing. And unless the congress has enough to override a veto (doubtful) the president would have vetoed it. Instead he signed it and added a caveat.
He is directly stating that he will ignore those safeguards
On occasion.
on top of a law passed to restate the will of the people that he follow them.
And giving it with that very law is the most appropriate thing to do. That is how signing statements are always used. By all presidents that have used them.
What is reasonable about a President saying directly that he intends not to follow a law the people thought it important enough to re-issue?
What is it with an article that decides to ignore the long standing history of an act (aigning statement) and specifically points out the most recent one as if he creatred it anew?
What safeguards do you expect will be followed by a man who says he will not follow them?
As i wrote in my orignal reply, none. I just said if there would be no abuses, it would be ok, but that i didn't believe there would be no abuses.
Until he does this, this is irrelevant. That he could declare Martial Law does not grant him those powers before he does so. If/When he does, then this will likely trigger a very serious response from the previously apathetic citizens; this response is the risk and price of taking those powers. He doesn't gain the powers unless that risk is taken and that price paid.
IIRC, martial law does not have to be declared. The president lerely needs to excercise that power. Article 1, Section 9 states: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. ". As long as "public safety" requires it, it can be done, and that is exactly the case here (as presented by the president).
Ah, i've always went with Gnome over KDE. Perhaps i shall have to look at KDE instead. Thanx for the tip.
`No, i mean the Window Managers. Applications would be nice as well, but the WMs are more important. Escpecially things like starting the applications and moving them around.''
Could you elaborate on that? I have the feeling there are solutions for the problems you have encountered, but without knowing specifics, it's hard to be sure.
"like starting the applications and moving them around."
``Considering Windows started before the mouse was commonplace, keyboarding was a requirement. It's a wionder why X isn;t like that too.''
X does nothing besides providing a protocol and a set of APIs for accessing input devices and displays. Applications, including window managers, are free to implement as few or as many keyboard shortcuts as they like. I use X every day, and I pretty much only use the mouse to click links.
I understand that. I guess what i mean is it would be nice if X would have APIs for a set of keyboard shortcuts, that both the WMs and the applications could use.
In Windows, i rarely use the mouse if i am not browsing or gaming, or just leaning back. There's hardly i think i cannot do with the keyboard, and the keyboard is faster (when i responded (a few years back) to some hundreds of email (tech support) i saved about 4 seconds per email by keyboarding, and that was just opening, sending, and closing.)
Under X, i found most things to be not keyboardable (or at least not intuitive to me) and it was enough to make me go back to Windows.
I'm thinking of setting upa Linux box again, and this is one of the main sticking points for me.
First, thank you for quoting the fourth amendment. It is very applicable here.
I would just like to comment, that i don't think that he isn't breaking anything.
1. Mail is not your papers (it's the senders, until you accept it.)
2. Mail is given to the post office to be delivered according to the rules, and it is those rules that he is changing.
3. The keyword here is "reasonable". Assuming safe guards are in place, a search of the mail is reasonable.
4. The president can declare martial law in which case due process is suspended.
All in all, this in itself is not a Bad Thing, if it is not abused. But, i'm relatively sure it will be abused, so i hope they stop this before it gets anywhere.
If anything, we need to strengthen the fourth amendment before its loopholes become the rule.
For a total 284 days in 2006 (or more than nine months out of the year)
Yep, it took them nine months to get that baby.
``X (or rather, the Window Managers) still has a long way to go in that area.''
You mean the applications.
No, i mean the Window Managers. Applications would be nice as well, but the WMs are more important. Escpecially things like starting the applications and moving them around.
If the problem would be tackled, it would start with the WMs, and then move onto the applications. After using X for a while i moved back to Windows for two reasons. IE 5 crashed less than Mozilla, and keyboard shortcuts which i use extensively. And keyboard shortcuts is something MS does very well (rarely see an MS program that doesn't, one version of SQL Server didn't in the management console) and indeed has it as part of the Windows Logo Requirement.
Considering Windows started before the mouse was commonplace, keyboarding was a requirement. It's a wionder why X isn;t like that too.
For people who mostly control Office via keyboard commands, and rarely use menus and toolbars, all of the basic keyboard commands are the same.
Phew!
The menus, icons, and buttons are helpful, but keyboard commands are where Microsoft really shines. X (or rather, the Window Managers) still has a long way to go in that area. I'd actually think if MS changes the keyboard shortcuts it would be a real issue, but for the icons, people will learn them easily enough and move on.
Think about this: the only way that would matter is if there is an immobile object two seconds ahead of you. You're driving along, then mysteriously, 315 feet in front of you, something is stopped dead. What are the actual chances of this happening to any responsible, alert driver doing 70 MPH?
Simple, you're the third car in a lineup where the second car driver read your comment.
Derspatchel's response is to go medieval on Daniels' xxx
Can we please have at least some decency in the stories here?
I congratulate you on the first MEANINGFUL use of the Slashdot tag system.
:)
Heh, thanx.
Originally, my comment was different, and i meant the tag as a commentary of a joke. Then, as i started getting serious, i rearranged everything, and this came out.
Who knows, tags may yet be useful.
The expectation is that Congress will mandate new compositions for some U.S. coins in 2007.
IOW, the coinery composed a forbiddance against decomposing, but the newly composed representatives forbodes a coining of a new composition.
From the owner of www.perverted-justice.com and creator of "To catch a predator" on Dateline NBC.
(and this is a direct quote)
My goal is not to protect minors...It's to go after pedophiles...it's because pedophiles are disgusting people...That's why we go after them.
That sounds scary. Mob rule being promoted by an individual. At least he's true to his name "perverted justice".
We must ask for the facts sometimes, because perhaps it has lost its original meaning in the emotional charge the masses have given to it.
I remember watching the debates on the flag burning amendment. One Representative burnt a napkin with a flag on it at the podium saying that if we ban flag burning, that action would be illegal.
Regardless of the issue of flag burning, he had a point. Even those who are for the amendment don't intend it to go that so far as destroying any image resembling a flag, so perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of patriotism.
I find the same point to be applicable here. Whether stopping child porn will help protect the children or not is irrelevant, those who promote child porn bans by saying it will help, probably don't intend for it to ban all images resembling it, and they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren.
There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not. This then would become an issue of freedom. If there is no victim, and they keep to themselves, why should anyone else care. If it is because it may in the future hurt a child, again, perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren.
hidden landscape
Of course, to get to the hidden landscape you have to go to the fake water stream, and travel forward one step, then backwards one step, while holding down the acceleration pedal, and jump towards the center of the hole.
This story is music to my ears.
Mozart was considered a genius, by people we consider geniuses. This is definitely something to checkout.
This is pretty interesting. Having worked in an office environment, and *wanting* to wortk from home, i'm sure i couls get thing done just as well, like when i did contracting work. But this gives me someting to think about. Would i miss the camaraderie? Would it actually help? After, say, a year or two, would i still enjoy being "out of the loop"?
I have no idea, and i probably would love to find out. Regardless, it is something to think about.