Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Why not allow the update into the repos? (Score 4, Informative) 120

by fnj (#48227671) Attached to: OwnCloud Dev Requests Removal From Ubuntu Repos Over Security Holes

I don't think our AC(s) have the slightest idea how real life works. Developers don't "want their packages included" in any specific distro. Developers develop. They put the stuff out there and continually modernize it. Distros pick and choose what versions of what packages they include in any given release at the time of release. That's when all major revs are frozen for the duration of use of that distro release. The whole rat's nest of apps and libraries has to work together, You can't just update one piece of it.

The alternative is a rolling release like Arch, where every package is continually updated to the latest. The downside to that is when, for example, Apache 2.2 gets updated to 2.4 your website stops working because they changed the details of the config file. Rolling is the way to go for desktop where you don't want million year old obsolete packages preventing you from getting anything done, but not so much for servers.

This is to help the clueless understand. Obviously you know how it works.

Comment: Re:Dear Canada.... (Score 1) 522

by ScentCone (#48218081) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

Actually, we are sending several fighter jets to bomb ISIS, right now. Odds are that's what is precipitating these attacks.

No, nutballs who decide to kill soldiers on the street because they are part of an organization that is taking some modest steps to help stop other nutballs from killing more innocents as those nutballs attempt to institute a medieval Islamic thugocracy in as many places as possible ... that's what precipitated these attacks.

If the crazies weren't mad at the concept of having their Islamist wet dream torn down, then their followers in places like Canada wouldn't be getting the message to go out and kill soldiers in the street. None of that would happen without theocratic wackadoos deciding to kill those who are trying to stop their tactics. The attacks in Canada were precipitated by religion, not by Canada's involvement in trying to stop any army of tens of thousands of religious murders.

Comment: Re:$3,500... really?? (Score 2) 280

by Obfuscant (#48216755) Attached to: Tech Firm Fined For Paying Imported Workers $1.21 Per Hour

Want to teach employers not to break the law like this, the employees should have been paid 3x their original earnings.

They were paid more than 3 times their original earnings. They were paid at $1.21 an hour originally and then at $8/hour as backpay. They also got a bonus for travel, and almost certainly got money for room and board.

Comment: Re:A bit???? (Score 1) 165

by Obfuscant (#48215813) Attached to: Austin Airport Tracks Cell Phones To Measure Security Line Wait

My airline knows I'm there. TSA knows I'm there.

Your airline doesn't know you are standing in the security line, and it may not even know you are at the airport. The TSA doesn't know you are there until you hit the boarding pass/id check.

It's not like the other people in line with you have any real way of knowing and transmitting your identity.

Your MAC address isn't your identity any more than your IP address is. But yes, they can easily snap a photo of you and send it off to the web.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48214621) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions,

Words like "entrapment" change meanings all the time. The specific word "entrapment" already has, by your own admission, at least three meanings, one of which includes the example of someone being entrapped by their emotions. If you think the law should simply use "the dictionary", then you really must think that the law should prohibit people being entrapped by their emotions just as it prohibits the government entrapping them in criminal activity.

Entrapment is a very simple term without much room for negotiating intricate meanings.

In the law, entrapment should be a simple term without room for negotiating intricate meanings, and it can only achieve that by leaving the Webster's or OED behind and defining it in simple terms to mean exactly what is intended.

The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society.

That's nonsense. "Everyone else" cannot be guilty of entrapment because entrapment can only apply to a government agent because that is how it is defined by law. If I convince you to go rob a bank, you can't point at me and say I'm guilty of entrapment, you can only claim I'm a co-conspirator and should go to jail too. Were I to "entrap" you to rob that bank by appealing to your emotions, I may have "entrapped" you according to one dictionary definition, but you aren't going to avoid jail by arguing that there was "entrapment".

Were I a government agent doing that, neither of us would go to jail. Since entrapment is still an affirmative defense, why you think the government can do it without repercussions is a mystery. Entrapment is a concept that applies ONLY to the government, and is prohibited to them, so how you can say that they can do it while others cannot is, well, I don't really care why you think such an obviously silly thing.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48214467) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

You are arguing everything except the point. (see next)

No, I am arguing exactly the point I am trying to make, and which is based on a statement you made in response to someone who pointed out that legal terms often have a very specific meaning. It was the first sentence of your first paragraph (which is called the "topic sentence"), which was:

That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions.

You, yourself, pointed out that "entrapment" already has multiple meanings, only one of which should be used in a legal context, and which is why the legal use needs to have a specific limited definition.

So yes, they should have different definitions, because to simply use the dictionary would create laws that are too broad and too open to change as the language changes. That's the point. It's not "two forms of justice", it's one form, well defined.

Comment: Re:The good news (Score 1) 688

by Obfuscant (#48209051) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.
Except Dish didn't brick just pirate hardware. They bricked my personally owned Dish network box about fifteen minutes after I called up to cancel service. My personal property, which I should have been able to sell to someone else so they could get Dish service if they wanted it, useless. It would be exactly like Comcast bricking your personally owned cable modem scant minutes after you cancel their service, preventing you from selling it to someone else to use with their cable provider.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48208965) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions,

Words change meaning all the time, and you cannot predict which ones will or will not in advance, dude. See what I did there? I used a word which has changed meaning.

But it doesn't matter if "entrapment" WILL change meanings, you've already shown that it has multiple meanings, only one of which should be covered by a law against entrapment. I thought that would have been clear when I used your own list of definitions to show you that.

The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society.

This is a completely different issue than what I replied to, which was your claim that the law should not define the words it uses, it should use common usage definitions. But in any case, no, that's not what the court said. It is not illegal for the police to entrap you, but it is an affirmative defense against the charge they have entrapped you into.

If you can not comprehend why two forms of justice are not possible in a "Free" society shame on you.

Since I wasn't talking about this mythical "two forms of justice", just the part where you claimed that legal definitions should be based on the standard dictionary, you're just resorting to ad hominem when you got caught with your pants down. Yep, I called you a nutter, but that wasn't part of my argument why you were wrong. I went ahead and said explicitly why you are wrong. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend that.

and yes we have had brief conversations previously where you demonstrate an adolescent level of dialogue.

You're projecting, now.

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray

Working...