Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Trade secret? (Score 1) 73

by ScentCone (#49349053) Attached to: Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design

Future plans would, by definition, be unreleased product, so that does not count.

It may indeed count - lots of products have latent features included specifically to support future developments or accessories, or interoperability with perhaps some other product or service which is still in development.

A car manufacturer may very well 'consider' his design to be a secret, but once the car is available for sale they can't successfully claim it IS a secret

The "car's design" may not be a "secret" in the most casual sense of that term, but there may be software features, or other aspects of things like interface design that are not yet put to work because new options are coming down the road. Even if a not-yet-used feature or interface is patented, that doesn't mean that knowledge of it or how it might leverage other third-party deals for new behavior or features isn't considered very much to be sensitive information and exactly the sort of thing you'd want to discuss under and NDA. I may have a patent on something, but that doesn't mean that everything I have to say with prospective partners or employees or retailers is something that I consider insignificantly strategic or sensitive to want to protect.

The only way an NDA makes sense in this case is if they planned to have every person who entered one of 'their' datacenters, for all eternity, sign an NDA

Just because you can walk into a datacenter doesn't mean you'll understand, by looking around, every last competitive detail about how things are being done under the hood.

I have a pile of equipment running in a datacenter. There's a two-way NDA in place to protect both their operations and mine, not that either of us are doing anything terribly exciting. Sometimes the NDA is there just to keep the overall nature of the business arrangements or financial information from being disclosed. For example, I don't want MY customers to be able to pick around and find out what I pay for my co-lo space. Likewise, my datacenter doesn't want me to write a blog describing their internal security operations, or what I pay for the particular deal we struck three mergers/acquisitions ago.

Comment: Re:people are going to be saying (Score 1) 650

by ScentCone (#49348063) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

what exactly is confusing to you about that term

Nothing. Both I and the people who wrote it completely understand the context in which it's used. YOU on the other hand, are inventing a completely new interpretation of the constitution wherein the document they wrote to limit the government's ability to infringe on your rights is suddenly (but just in this case!) suddenly the exact opposite. Which part of "shall not be infringed" are YOU have trouble with? Again, please link to any - even ONE - writing by a single author of the constitution that suggests, for a moment, that they intended the second amendment, let along the entire document, to be a limit on the people, in stead of a limit on the government. Go ahead, cite some heretofore undiscovered writings. Please!

What? You can't find any? I thought so.

we will have the founder's intent

The founders intent was to make sure that the government "shall not infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why? Because they also had to stand up an army ("militia") on occasion, and didn't want ANYONE (especially people like you) to be confused and begin to think that it was only the militia that would be allowed to keep and bear arms. Your inability to read 18th century writing in the context in which it was written doesn't change the entire purpose of the constitution into a regulatory document that limits your freedoms. It's exactly the opposite.

So, go ahead: cite a single piece of correspondence, a single page from the federalist papers, ANYTHING that begins to support your inability to parse the language. You won't even bother to try, because you know you're just making stuff up in hopes that someone else reading your posts will think the constitution is a freedom limiting, rather than a freedom protecting document. You're just pretending that you don't understand that the constitution leaves it up to the states to pass legislation that sets forth criminal penalties for things like murder. Why you want to look so dumb is a bit of a mystery.

So, fire away. Let's see something other than your backwards assertions. You claim to know the founders' intent, but you cannot trouble yourself to actually cite a single passage from any of them that backs up what you say. Go for it. Show that you're not a liar by doing something other than stamping your feet.

all of the lies about the benefits are guns are outweighed by the obvious facts of the hell of too many easy guns

So you're saying the FBI is lying now? Please show your evidence - not just you having another fit - that indicated where, precisely, they are incorrect in their reporting. No? You don't have any, do you?

Tens of thousands of people are killed using knives, pipes, and cars, etc. Have you just not got around to finding a way to re-interpret the constitution to claim the founders wanted people to be well trained in their use? You keep dodging that question. Why? Because you know you're deliberately trying to mislead on this topic.

OK! Ready for your links to historical writings. Go.

If you want, you can start by finding some opposition to the people who wrote the huge body of documents surrounding the forming and adoption of the amendments.

Here's a typical example, from Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution from 1789: "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Case in point. They're talking about the amendment preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms, privately, specifically because there will also be a government-armed/trained militia/army. You are deliberately flipping their intent upside down in an attempt to reinvent the constitution to suit your tastes.

How about Samuel Adams, clarifying things for you, in 1788: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." That sums up the first round of amendments nicely, and makes it plainly clear (to everyone but you, because you're trying to wish it away, and assume that they wrote just one of those amendments as a regulation requiring limits rather than protecting liberty) that ALL of those amendments are intended to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER. To prevent the government from infringing on things like freedom of speech, freedom to keep their own arms, assembly, etc.

You're probably thinking of some other founders, right? You wouldn't want to involve people like Jefferson, probably, because it would ruin your narrative? Jefferson loved to quote Beccaria, incuding this one: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

I'll look forward to you citing a specific example of the second amendment being described by any of the people who wrote and implemented all of those contemporary amendments, as protecting a right that was in ANY way conditional on passing some sort of government test of skill. You seem certain that intent exists: put up, or shut up. Show the thinking that defines the founders' concepts of a skill test for individual gun ownership, something that they repeatedly say shall not be infringed.

Comment: Re:Trade secret? (Score 1) 73

by ScentCone (#49346779) Attached to: Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design

The phrase "contacted Facebook" sounds more like "talked to a random employee" than "participated in a business meeting under NDA".

Could be - who knows. I'm sure that's exactly the sort of thing that would come out in the civil trial, or, being absent from any evidence provided in the suit, possibly cause the judge to throw the whole thing out. I'm party to multiple NDA's, and it can be very dangerous ground if you're not careful.

Comment: Re:people are going to be saying (Score 1) 650

by ScentCone (#49346765) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

we will have adherence to the second amendment. as the founders intended: sensible control and training

Except that's not what the amendment means, it's not what it says, and it's not what the people who wrote it said - in their MANY supporting letters and other documents - that they meant. You are going out of your way to avoid basic facts because you want to convert the constitution into a document that regulates individual freedoms.

I notice that when asked to cite the basis for a whole list of irrational assertions on your part, you're just ignoring that. Why? Because you don't have anything to go on.

I get it. You think that of all the dangerous things in the world, and despite the countless other ways that people are murdered every year, that you think guns shouldn't be allowed. Fine, that's your opinion. It's an opinion completely lacking any perspective, relative to everything else mentioned, but you're entitled to your opinion. What you're NOT entitled to are your own set of facts. Facts: the people who wrote the constitution explained exactly why they did it, and there are copious contemporary writings that demonstrate you have your understanding of not only wrong, but exactly backwards. The only possibility is that you're well aware of that, but are pretending otherwise because you're hoping that gullible readers will fall for it, in support of your agenda. Otherwise, you'd actually address the issues raised - which you won't, because you can't without showing that you're BSing about it.

The only thing you ARE doing is trotting out a link to some stats about Canadian homicide rates. That page indirectly brings up the notion of the high homicide rate in the US. Fine! Let's talk about that (again). If you remove from the US stats a handful of specific areas where urban gang crime is very high (even though, by your standards, it should be a paradise because of the most restrictive gun laws in the country), then the homicide rates are actually lower than elsewhere.

So I'll ask you again, on the off chance you're feeling braver this time: reconcile those facts. Don't link to a web site about Canada. Actually address the substance of the matter, directly, in your own words: how does a place like Chicago, which has some of the most draconian, restrictive gun laws in the country - just the way you like it! - end up having a murder problem that accounts for a huge portion of the entire country's statistics? Is it possible that the problem is actually the people who are killing each other over gang turf? That happens in other places, too - only they use machetes and other implements ... but for exactly the same reasons. You're confusing the tools with the people who use them, and then try to turn the constitution inside out in order to avoid making a judgement call about local behavior in certain demographic sub-groups.

do you own guns? then you believe responsible gun use is mandatory to own a gun. right?

You are also unable to understand the difference between "owning" and "using." To you belive that you shouldn't be allowed to own a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife without government-provided training? No? Why not? Be specific. Otherwise, your hypocrisy on the subject will be plain enough for even you to see.

Comment: Re:Trade secret? (Score 3, Insightful) 73

by ScentCone (#49346281) Attached to: Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design
I'm not debating that. I presume that the company doing the complaining here is suggesting that despite the existing and well-discussed concept of modularity, they had something proprietary that was new or especially creative in leveraging that general concept. That's the sort of nitty-gritty detail that an NDA is supposed to protect.

Comment: Re:people are going to be saying (Score 1) 650

by ScentCone (#49346255) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

maybe we should control guns better, like all of our peers?

Oh, so you've abandoned the whole "the second amendment is actually a safety regulation" line of argument?

all easy guns in the usa means is far more homicides

So how do you explain the fact that gun ownership continues to climb, while homicides of all kinds (including those in which a gun was used) are steadily going down? Please be specific in reconciling your use of the word "more" with the actual stats, which show "less."

why aren't societies with strong gun controls drowning in rape and robbery like your hysteria says?

Please cite the sentence or passage, written by me, in which I hysterically describe what you're saying. An actual link, please.

extra guns does not mean less crime

Please reconcile that assertion with the actual observed facts: places like Miami saw an immediate drop in violent crime of all kinds, including murder, when citizens there were no longer as limited in their ability to own and carry firearms. A huge and growing violent crime problem there reversed itself and has been going down ever since, even as more people are owning - and in many cases, getting permits to carry - guns.

While you're explaining that, please explain how some of the most restrictive laws in the country (in Chicago, for example) exist in places where violent crime is steadily increasing? How can that be? How is it that your idea of making it harder for non-criminals to own a gun is causing more violent crime? Please be specific in explaining your theory.

all people like you mean to me is: you think every single altercation has to escalate to someone being dead.

Please cite a single example, ever, of my saying or implying any such thing. Be specific.

In the meantime, reconcile that irrational assertion with the fact that people use firearms hundreds of thousands of times a year in the US alone to prevent or stop violence from happening. Usually, without firing a single shot. How do you reconcile those statistics with your fantasy notion of every single altercation escalating to death? I know how: you're fantasizing.

it's just extra death for no reason

By "extra" you mean the opposite, right? Because there are fewer deaths now than five years ago, than ten years ago, or twenty five years ago. Spend a minute looking at the information published by the FBI, who have nicely bundled all of that information up for you, so that your completely made-up picture of the situation can be corrected with basic facts.

But at least you've given up thinking of the constitution as a body of regulations limiting your freedom. That's a start.

Comment: Re:Trade secret? (Score 3, Informative) 73

by ScentCone (#49345955) Attached to: Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design

How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.

Or, show it to prospective customers/partners under a Non Disclosure Agreement. Like happens millions of times a year throughout most industries, and probably (I'd be very surprised to find otherwise) happened in this case.

Comment: Re:War on terror update part 2 (Score 1) 650

by ScentCone (#49345883) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident
So you're comparing an imagined "mass hysteria" that manifests itself as years-long legislative and regulatory exercises and countless court reviews and modifications ... with low-information violent individual idiots who are hugely outnumbered by people who actually seek to defend and protect the victims of the sort of unwarranted assaults described?

Comment: Re:people are going to be saying (Score 1) 650

by ScentCone (#49345831) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

the usa seems to think handing out guns is completely ok

Please link to something describing this gun hand-out program, especially to one that ignores existing federal laws about not letting crazy people buy them.

The real issue there is that crazy people aren't called crazy any more, because it's politically incorrect to do anything other than mainstream them and hope for the best.

laws that promote *irresponsible* gun use

Please cite actual laws that promote irresponsible gun use. Specifically.

the second amendment even says a "well-regulated" militia (meaning "well-trained").

Which has 100% nothing to do with the protections the 2nd amendment guarantees individuals. It's BECAUSE the founders knew that having a standing army and/or people ready to stand up a be an army was always going to be necessary, that they didn't want the government and it's approved soldiers to have a monopoly on the ownership of firearms. You've talked about this before, and walked away from the conversation whenever you're confronted with the actual history of the matter. Choosing to take the amendment's language out of context doesn't change things. The second amendment doesn't require training any more than first amendment requires you to learn how to capitalize your sentences - something you still haven't figured out. Both of those amendments, like others, exist to prevent government interference with your rights, not to limit them. That you think it's the opposite shows how you completely misunderstand the constitution and its history.

a gun is dangerous and requires responsible training

Just like kitchen knives, swords, horses, and matches, right? Please point to a single other place in the constitution or in any of the contemporary writings of the people who wrote it and the amendments where there's even a HINT of concern about it being part of the nation's founding charter that people aren't allowed to handle dangerous things without government training. Farmers even then were using black powder explosives to remove tree stumps in their fields. Which amendment addresses that? Please, be specific.

how can someone who is a responsible gun owner defend this status quo?

You mean, the steady, multi-decade decline in violence that happens to involve the use of guns? But more to the point, people mis-using cars kill a lot more people. People using objects like knives and baseball bats kill far more people than anyone using any sort of rifle. How can drivers and baseball fans defend this status quo, right? Right?

you would think gun owners would know more than anyone the need for responsible training first

Right. People who use all sorts of potentially lethal devices and substances generally know to learn about being safe before doing something dumb. But of course thousands of people die and kill other people doing dumb, reckless or malicious stuff with non-gun items every year. Your completely phony obsession with a fantasy notion that, of all of the dangerous items and activities in the world, ONE of them gets a constitutional amendment mandating safety training, and that that amendment, unlike all the others which exist to limit the government's reach exists to limit individual rights - it's laughable. Spend five minutes studying the entire purpose of the constitution, and you'll (if you're honest) understand that you have it completely backwards on the one amendment you're cherry-picking and twisting to suit your agenda.

Comment: Re:people are going to be saying (Score 1) 650

by ScentCone (#49345601) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident
Except ... before a range of provisions were made, good old fashioned "take me to Cuba" style hijackings became regular occurrences. Once people saw it could be done, there were many, many people doing it or at least attempting it. It took fairly draconian measures to make it stop, thought it still occasionally happened. Which is why the people onboard at least the first couple of doomed aircraft on 9/11 had no expectation that the people who took over the cockpits were going to use them all as part of a guided missile.

So, your take on it now is that if we just made it obvious to everyone that in order to avoid the incredibly unusual event of a suicidal pilot being able to lock others out of the cockpit, we just allow anyone from the Crazy Islamist Or Otherwise Brigade to have a go at the cockpit's unsecured door? Not every aircraft has an air marshal or the equivalent onboard. The flight crew isn't generally armed or always going to be able to deal with, say, several guys willing to kill others in order to crash an aircraft. All they'd have to do is make it happen at the last minute during an approach, and splash a big pile of flaming wreckage into a large urban area. They've already tried that a couple times since, using explosives that thankfully failed for minor technical reasons.

The zealot wackadoos, in case you haven't noticed, have been busy increasing in number and willingness to kill themselves in order to kill others. I doubt that the number of suicidal professional pilots is changing in any meaningful way from "essentially none." The difference is that legions of crazies have expressed a continuing devotion to killing as many people as possible in as spectacular a way as possible, because Allah likes it that way. They advertise their desire to do it, and have demonstrated many attempts and plans since 9/11 to do more of the same. You really think that leaving cockpit doors unlocked won't matter because, after all, they've all decided that their previous buddies' actions were a bit over the top?

Comment: Re:Boorish (Score 3, Insightful) 519

by ScentCone (#49345439) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear
I wonder where the rest of the world is putting all of the cars that they ask to have put on huge freighters and shipped overseas? There must be some huge warehouses full of those vehicles. And all of the private exporters who gray-market US cars to destinations all over the planet must be truly perplexed by the money they receive, since no one is actually driving the cars.

Comment: Re:War on terror update part 2 (Score 1) 650

by ScentCone (#49344731) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

anti-bearded-terrorist mass hysteria

I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of mass hysteria. That usually implies things like witch hunts where a large group of people react to an imagined threat. You know, like, witches or something. Or that poor woman beat to death the other day by a mob in Afghanistan because of a made-up story about something she did ... which she didn't do.

Or, you've got cases like those that led to secured cockpits on commercial aircraft. You know, when actual terrorists - most without beards - killed thousands of people. No hysteria involved, it actually happened. And because of steps taken, that particular approach isn't going to happen again (though many people have since been tackled and restrained in-flight as they tried to gain access to the cockpit). No, now the bad guys are trying to anticipate when the planes will be above a population center, and bring them down by other means (like, say, by attempting to blow a hole in the fuselage while on approach over Detroit, or by shipping bomb-laden laser printers in the cargo, that sort of thing). Also not imagined in the throws of hysteria.

Comment: Re:Is it time for a nationwide class-action lawsui (Score 2) 486

And how is that different for labor unions, huge non-profits, people like George Soros...? It's not. What the court did was strike down a law that was allowing SOME people to pool resources in the context of political communication while preventing other people from doing the same thing. Which is a clear violation of both the first and fourteenth amendments. If you want a law that limits speech, come up with one that applies to everybody in the same way, and which doesn't violate the constitution's protections.

Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

Working...