the Chinese government being upfront about their censorship
You don't actually think the Chinese government goes out of their way to tell the Chinese people that they're being censored, do you? Most Chinese people don't know that they're being censored, and frankly don't care.
And it's worth noting that Texas is not a "failing Texas sized state economy," but is doing well relatively with significant economic growth compared to other large states.
Well, from my understanding of "Operation Shady RAT", they found out which organizations/gov'ts were targeted by taking over/siezing one of the info-collection and zombie-controlling computers. Much of the speculation that it was China is based on the fact that the hackings targeted the US, Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, etc...
For all we know, it could be North Korea or the US doing it. The fact that the controlling computer indicates only those targets could be a frame in case they get caught. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more control computers targeting other sets of countries and organizations. I also wouldn't be surprised if China really is behind it.
Oh yeah. That'll work. I'm sure I'll be able to use that for DNS just like I can use Bitcons to pay my bills.
(Oops! Did I forget the i in Bitcon?)
Names expire after 12000 blocks unless renewed with an update
So... not that it'll ever happen, but what happens when there are more than 12000 namecoin top level "domains"? That's a pretty short-sighted limit...
[citation needed]
No, seriously. I don't think you were wrong, I'd just be interested to see the changes the other admin was trying to make/prevent, and to what level they were taking it.
When I first learned about Wikipedia, I made a change here or there to improve clarity of points. They were all relatively minor grammatical fixes and kept the same idea that was already there. Almost every single one was reverted. I couldn't get more reason than that I was not logged in, and the editor didn't trust/like anyone who would edit from an "anonymous" IP address. (At the time, I was not interested in creating an account and saw no benefit to it. I still feel the same way. But now I don't even bother if the content is bad.)
Irrelevant, he wasn't in a state of mind to obey police however he was just fine a few minutes earlier while breaking into cars?
Uh... Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Don't answer; I already know: It never existed.)
I've not read a single article that even claimed he was the one breaking into cars. The police were called because someone was suspected of breaking into cars. The caller didn't even know, they just suspected. And then the cops came and guessed that this shirtless, bearded dude with a backpack was the person suspected of breaking into cars.
They wanted to search him, and he resisted. They then proceeded to beat the living shit out of him until there was no living shit left. He's dead now.
How do you know that Kelly Thomas wasn't just a homeless schizo in the wrong place at the wrong time? For people who aren't schizo, it's easy enough to say "just go along with what they say or you will die", but there will always be people who are not capable of doing that. Does that mean they should die, even without proof of wrongdoing? Or are you suggesting that non-conformance to the idea of a "normal" person is enough wrongdoing to constitute death without trial? It's impossible to prove, but I bet that if he was clean-shaven and wearing a shirt, he would be alive today.
Java is not dead. Maybe it's not the hip language anymore, but it definitely is not dead.
Just like COBOL is not dead. Sure, it's not the hip language, but so many legacy systems are built on it that it's basically guaranteed to live for quite a while longer. I suspect Java will have the same fate.
Right. The whole subject is junk. Just look at TFS:
New evidence always seems to emerge to support or refute such a link.
Ok. So there's 2 options: support, refute. But then:
This marks the 3rd study this month and the 4th major one this year, all with different conclusions
If each has different results, then we have:
inconclusive (not one of two possible outcomes stated)
I disagree.
There are quite a few situations where the bloat of Java doesn't fit. One of those is writing operating systems and drivers. Another is writing games. Sure, there are a few games here and there (Altitude, Minecraft) written with Java; however, a significantly greater number of games are written in C++.
It's kind of like Lua vs Python. When you need a huge set of libraries built into the language's standard library, go with Python. When you don't need all that bloat, use Lua.
They would make far less money that way...
I can only imagine what would happen if he were to get up on stage and start speaking about security practices..
That's just the thing. Security isn't his specialty, or the specialty of most of the "security" industry. They deal in exploits and writing trojans.
Think of them like you think of the US Department of Defense. Again, dealing with the complete opposite of what the name implies.
Being that this is in the same orbit around the Sun as Earth and it will stay there, is this a viable location for a human colony?
First space colony would be the moon, then this asteroid, then Mars?
Right. There are exceptions for people who have a mentally handicapped child, or where both parents are from an ethnic minority, or where both parents are from single-child families. But I have never heard of an exception allowing 3 or more children that are not born together.
In other words, the only way to legally have 3 Chinese children is to have triplets (or twins if a second child has been allowed).
Clearly, the couple in this story did not have twins or triplets, and that begs the question of how they managed to avoid stiff punishments for their 2nd/3rd children.
So let me preface by stating: IANAL! I don't even pretend to be. On top of that, the wikipedia article linked seems only to summarize the laws...
17. Intentionally commits homicide
Definitely not that.
18. Intentionally inflicting injury upon another person AND if he/she causes death to the person or, by resorting to especially cruel means, causes severe injury to the person, reducing the person to utter disability
Not causing physical harm.
19. Raping a woman or has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 14 in any of the following circumstances:
(1) the circumstances being flagrant;
(2) raping a number of women or girls under the age of 14;
(3) raping a woman before the public in a public place;
(4) raping a woman with one or more persons in succession; or
(5) causing serious injury or death to the victim or any other serious consequences.
None of these, the parents are not raping their children.
20. Unlawfully detaining another person or unlawfully deprives the personal freedom of another person by any other means AND if he causes injury, disability or death to the victim by violence.
21. Unlawfully detaining or confines another person in order to get payment of a debt does the same in (20)
22. Where a functionary of a State organ commits any of the crimes mentioned in (20).
The parents aren't detaining their children. The buyer may be though...
23. Kidnapping another person for the purpose of extorting money or property or kidnaps another person as a hostage AND Whoever kidnaps another person for the purpose of extorting money or property or kidnaps another person as a hostage.
Parents aren't really kidnapping their own child...
24. Abducting and trafficking in a woman or child AND if the circumstances are especially serious beyond the following:
Ok. Here's where it might be tricky. According to the wikipedia article you linked, abducting AND trafficking. Parents are only trafficking their own child.
(1) being a ringleader of a gang engaged in abducting and trafficking in women and children;
Systematic conception and sale of children doesn't really seem like a gang; maybe I'm wrong.
(2) abducting and trafficking in three or more women and/or children;
Again with the word abducting. Without that, I think they could get pegged on this one...
(3) raping the woman who is abducted and trafficked in;
Nope. They don't do any raping as far as the news has reported.
(4) enticing or forcing the woman who is abducted and trafficked in to engage in prostitution, or selling such woman to any other person who would force her to engage in prostitution;
Gender specific to female, and again with the word abducted.
(5) kidnapping a woman or child by means of violence, coercion or anaesthesia for the purpose of selling the victim;
Parents didn't kidnap their own children
(6) stealing a baby or an infant for the purpose of selling the victim;
Again, not stealing...
(7) causing serious injury or death to the woman or child who is abducted and trafficked in or to her or his relatives or any other serious consequences; or
Doesn't apply
(8) selling a woman or a child out of the territory of China.
This may apply, but no specifics have been given about where the children are, where they were sold to, etc...
I feel like a broken record, but none of the items in the list seem to fit very well. Sure, you can wish the firing squad on them, but that doesn't bend the law to include them for it. (This assuming that CCP doesn't dictate their execution.) Again, IANAL and I could be wrong. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever learn much more about this case...
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
