Comment Re:Thirty years in prison (Score 1) 914
Harming a member of the establishment, or those who prop it up, always gets more punishment than harming a prole.
Harming a member of the establishment, or those who prop it up, always gets more punishment than harming a prole.
It matters if you're reporting A happened and actually it was B. Yes, in both cases something happened, and we can agree perhaps that they both fall into the "bad" category. But..so what? How does that make the story more accurate?
Oh, and "period".
No. Just one example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
"Michael Adebolajo has been given a whole-life term and Michael Adebowale has been jailed for a minimum of 45 years for murdering Fusilier Lee Rigby."
> I just hope there aren't unintended consequences, as there were in that movie.
Confusion, tiredness, desire to go to the toilet and not return?
"Thirty years in prison is currently the most severe punishment available in the UK legal system."
No, it's not. People get 30-year minimum sentences, for instance, and there are a number of prisoners on whole-life sentences:
Thank god the West doesn't have any problem with the wealthy and well connected being treated any differently to anyone else. Just think what sort of societal problems would be occurring on a daily basis were that the case.
So, you've not used LINQ on
You're missing the point. From Wikipedia:
---
The 1933 census, with design help and tabulation services provided by IBM through its German subsidiary, proved to be pivotal to the Nazis in their efforts to identify, isolate, and ultimately destroy the country's Jewish minority. Machine-tabulated census data greatly expanded the estimated number of Jews in Germany by identifying individuals with only one or a few Jewish ancestors. Previous estimates of 400,000 to 600,000 were abandoned for a new estimate of 2 million Jews in the nation of 65 million.[15]
---
Don't think of Nazi activities as the time of the war (1939-45) only because their evil started long before then, and IBM were there to help.
The perfect answer. And you can see for yourself, by a casual glance at Stack Overflow, that there's no shortage of new programmers without a clue in their head, and who expect people to solve problems that `give me the error` but who don't think it's important to include the actual error (as if there's only one possible error that could be provoked in that situation) or who demonstrate an utter lack of any resourcefulness, inquisitiveness or common sense.
People will either pirate it as-is, or just compress the audio; another case of making it more desirable than the original version (you won't need 48gigs and it'll sound exactly the same)
There may be hope: http://soylentnews.org/
I've no idea who's running this site, but an alternative Slashdot sounds intriguing and may go some way to addressing the increasing number of problems plaguing this site.
See also: http://soylentnews.org/
I've seen this stated (sarcastically) before. How could it not be better a second time, when you've used the first one to try stuff out; seen what worked, what didn't. How could it be worse? Is the implication that it would be of exactly the same quality - no better, no worse?
In my experience this is bullshit. Is there any evidence whatsoever that disproves my anecdotal evidence and shows that professional developers don't learn from their mistakes and even make a bigger hash of it the second time around?
> If the attacker has control of the hardware, they've already won.
They've only won because it means they can then do this.
Please could you repeat some of the statements a few more times in the writeup. Focus especially on "mitigations" - you can never write that word too many times.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
