Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The fact that they use the word "punishment" shows lack of understanding about what happened and is happening.
If you lie to me and get caught, and then I punch you in the nose, that's a punishment. But if you lie to me and get caught, and then after that I don't believe you whenever you tell me things, that's not punishment.
If Google and Mozilla are being "harsh" then the only ways one can honestly describe it, is that they have a "harsh opinion" or a "harsh estimate" of CNNIC's trustworthiness.
It's amusing to think that maybe some day this way of speaking will infect other areas. "That's sure a harsh calculation" or "this is a severe regex match" or "what a brutally spiteful and vindictive tree traversal."
Don't you people have any sense of humor anymore?
I think the problem is that he does have a sense of humor. If he didn't have one, then he would be politely laughing at the stupid posts, waiting for someone smarter than him to come along and let slip a clue that explains the joke. Little would such a humorless person realize, that there is no clue to give, because there isn't much of a joke to explain.
If you want to know whose ass that is, and why they're farting, then keep reading today's posts and maybe you'll get your answers amidst the day's deepening plot and theme. For the rest of us, though, Slashdot appears to be down today.
when that doesn't work (because the door is in "locked" state), the terrorist just threatens the (co)pilot inside to cabin to unlock or he'll kill the pilot and/or everyone else... At which point the pilot opens the door anyway.
He might open the door if he's armed (with the intent to come out blasting), but otherwise I don't think that's very likely.
Having a "Locked" position is idiotic to the extreme.
Unfortunately, not having a "Locked" position would be the same amount of idiotic.
Giving one pilot (in the cockpit) the means to basically lock himself in with no ability for the other pilot to enter is too great a danger.
But also failing to give one pilot the means to lock out the other pilot would be too great a danger.
Both scenarios presume one pilot who intends to destroy the aircraft and one pilot who intends to save it. That's the presumption either way, and however you approach the problem it's going to come down to whether the bad guy is locked into, or locked out of, the cockpit.
It's a coin toss, not 9/11-triggered-stupidity corruption.
It is unacceptable that Iceland need to take up large part of European legislation through a business agreement without getting representatives or audience.
Those crazy Icelandic nutcases!
This question really has jack shit to do with physics. You're looking for whatever laptop best fits a bunch of preferences that nobody else will ever guess (seriously, this is going to be the most important stuff) plus with the requirement that it also be good for editing and compiling C++. The latter can be done with damn near anything. So that leaves people to only debate
Next, we shall Kirk vs Picard vs Sheridan. You might also want to Ask Slashdot which political party's candidates you should vote for.
In regards to your first point, the system would have to be based on the offender's net worth rather than their income in the US, due to all of the tricks that the rich have paid to create in the tax code.
He was talking about hiding it. When things are hidden, tax loopholes are irrelevant because tax law isn't applied to the money in question anyway. If you can hide income then you can probably also hide the accumulated assets.
And as for loopholes, was the idea really based on income, or was it just taxable net?
Speeder: "Your honor, I have dependents and pay mortgage interest, so my fine should have exemptions and a deductible applied before you calculate my fine."
Speeder: "Furthermore, a lot of my income is from gains, so I should be fined at a lower rate than people who have jobs."
Judge: "Wow. You think I'm with the IRS."
I thought Kim Stanley Robinson was dead. No really, I thought I read something a few years ago (maybe even here on Slashdot) that he had died and remember thinking "shit, he'll never get to see Mars."
Obviously, I'm remembering this wrong, and he's alive. Good. I'm glad. I really liked the Mars series, especially the first book.
So.. uh.. I wonder who that was, who died and I got mixed up with KSR. Whoever you are, you will be
If you're a shop owner, then presumably your goods are actually for sale, so you're willing to accept money in exchange for goods which don't suddenly explode and retroactively bind me to a previously-unknown contract after I step out of the store. Few people would be interested in stealing your goods, because they can simply hand you money for them.
I was talking about a very different scenario than anything you will ever face involving shopkeepers: DRM, i.e. a form of fraud. That situation presumes you intend harm to others, so yes, shooting all would-be-customers as they walk into your "store" (if I may use that term very loosely) just might blend into that context seamlessly.
There needs to be more-than-ten years of imprisonment for using DRM. One work sold with DRM makes multiple people need to pirate it in order to watch it. If you sell a DRMed work that results in six people pirating it, then you get 60 years.
That would probably deter the crime of DRM, and once you do that, you eliminate the chief motive for piracy.
Just deal with both sides of the problem, and you might have a pretty good solution. The only remaining problem is that the constants are messed up and have a clipping problem on one side. If a million people pirate Game of Thrones, you can't really imprison the responsible HBO exec for ten million years. So make his sentence, say, 50 years, and then imprison each pirate for 50/10M years.
Obviously there are few things better than a good old friend's wife puking, but what would you have thought of the movie, had she not been there?