I just started studying a year or so ago, I looked around and saw more suggestions to start with Python than others. I don't remember seeing much about Ruby but I'm reading up on it as I get deeper into Python, they're relatively similar but I haven't had enough time with Ruby to understand it's philosophy.
Python is fun! I expect Ruby to be just as much, if not more so, I'm looking forward to it. Ultimately, I advise that you play around with different languages until you find one that you enjoy, that's a pretty significant factor to learning imo.
Same deal for me, usually after work is when I don't interruptions but there are days that work is slow and I can get a couple hours of hacking in. Yeah, having a day job sucks in some ways, my sleep schedule is pretty average right now though.
Isn't reverse engineering what hackers are largely about? Taking things apart and figuring out how they work, or does reverse engineering have a more specific definition?
RE to me is not, and has never been, a bad noun/verb though I often see others frowning upon it.
It depends on which 'hacker' you mean. The 'Hacker News' hacker or 'the movie Hackers' hacker? Though I bet you could shoe-horn reverse engineering into both without any trouble. That's a big part of the problem. People pick which part of the 'hacker' label they want to apply to themselves while discarding the undesirable parts. The end result is several related terms and multiple definitions, often overlapping or contradicting.
I don't know how the laws are in the UK but damn, jail-time for racists comments? I'm 100% against prejudice but being sent to jail for saying something controversial seems like a bit much.
I don't know much about the government there or what people have rights to, any clarity would be much appreciated.
"Inciting racial hatred" is illegal here. I think that's quite a bit more specific than "saying something controversial".
I don't see that this is any different from the US First Amendment. It has exceptions too (eg. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). "Inciting racial hatred" is an equivalent restriction. You may disagree on this law specifically, but I don't see how this affects anything fundamental like freedom of speech or anything like that.
I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards. Anyone can unfollow or even block his twitter, if you were even able to see it in the first place.
It is a freedom of speech issue because we should be allowed to write what we want on our personal social networks. I think it is absurd that mommy government can read your tweets (whats next? blogs, emails?) and give you jail time for the 'naughty' things you say.
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete
I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch hunts.
Judge or not a segment of the population is comfortable with the idea of the thought police and see them as the good guys, which should be a scary realization anytime it is witnessed. I would not want my life held in the balance by a judge who is going to make a subjective decision as to whether my speech was racist or not, in a society that accepts the policing of opinion, the judge already accepts as law that you are not entitled to your opinion, as such the deck is immediately stacked against you. Chances are in such a system judges will be affected by the same confirmation bias and group think as the rest of the population that thinks policing opinions, even when expressed in public is acceptable.
Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.
Judgment call or not there have been witch hunts before and many where sanctioned by authority such as judges, we are talking about policing opinions, it is a slipper slope because the entire idea is rooted in control as such more and more control will be exerted. As I mentioned below even the judges will be influenced by the idea that criminalizing opinions is OK, which will make the ever slighter infraction more and more offensive.
To a certain extent I do feel that it crosse a line in that it makes speech itself criminal. All US speech laws (except for obscenity, but I don't agree that obscenity should be illegal) deal with an inseparable conjunction of speech and action/effect. "Fighting words" and "incitement to riot" both cause an immediate act of physical harm. Defamation requires a demonstration of harm and even then is very plaintiff-unfriendly.
In the US you can never be jailed just for speech, you must be jailed for speech in conjunction with physical harm or targeted harassment.
Yes in the US, the legal system has in the past been innocent until proven guilty, this thinking has at least in spirit extended to innocent of a crime, until action has taken place, this has changed slowly over the years the first to my knowledge was conspiracy to commit murder (in the 1870's IIRC), then others followed like general conspiracy and solicitation etc. But for the most part up until the recent past (1970's on) minor issues required action before you where guilty of a crime. Public speech related offenses are still viewed in the same light, saying we should tear this place down was not inciting a riot until it incited a riot at which point the act of saying it became a criminal offense. So criminalization was retroactively applied to the speech after it created criminal action.
Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†.
I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense.
Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected.
The important thing isn't that everyone can read it, it's that everyone can not read it. I think that limiting the freedom of speech based purely on speech which one can easily opt out of is pretty reprehensible.
It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.
I don't know if you're aware, but the user posted the comments shortly after Muamba suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch during a game. He was in critical condition in hospital for days, and remains in serious condition now.
The scenes were broadcast live on television, and the incident has received extensive media coverage, leading to an outpouring of support from all members of society, including players and supporters of rival teams.
Personally, I don't think these facts should have any bearing on the legality of making such statements. As far as I'm concerned the relevant legislation is absurd — I don't believe offensive speech should be prohibited — and this was a knee-jerk sentencing, the severity of which seems almost entirely divorced from that of the crime, but you have to admit the comments were in pretty bad taste...
> I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards.
I think you'll find, posting it on Twitter is the same as getting a tshirt with it written on and walking on the streets.
You seem to misunderstand US law. The only comparative speech which is banned in the US is "fighting words," which must meet the much more strenuous requirement of "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
If the words themselves do not cause an imminent and immediate threat of violence they are protected.
The metaphor of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" was actually used in a Supreme Court ruling in Schenck v. United States, which justified putting a guy in prison for speaking (distributing leaflets) against the military draft. This decision was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. (Source: wikipedia)
Heh heh, that’s an old argument. So if my idea is, “Death to the Jews,” is that an incitement to action or an idea? We might disagree about this application of the law or that one, but the underlying principle is that certain types of ideas are considered to contribute towards certain types of crimes, or contribute towards an environment of fear, or contribute towards certain types of discrimination (which may not be criminal but is nevertheless illegal) and so forth..
Some people shrug and say, “Inciting a crime indirectly shouldn’t be a crime.” Others say, “Inciting a crime indirectly might be a crime, it depends on how indirectly, we need to talk about where to draw the line.” Others might say, “Inciting a crime ought to be a crime, but because there’s no unambiguous way to draw the line, we can’t make a law against it” and so on.
So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
Eh, by that logic we should jail all Marxists due to their belief that a worldwide Communist revolution will require violence. Or anarchist newsletters for even discussing the violant takeover of the United States. Or any of many legitimate political viewpoints which incorporate violence as a possible solution to ideological problems. Even Malcom X would fall under this purview.
I don't think this is a very strong argument at all.
This is why the US law generally allows even inciting speech as long as it does not cause an immediate threat of violence.
>So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
Not always. Hate speech is just that - if you're dumb enough to go and do something stupid based on what someone else says, that's your fault, not his.
"'Death to the Jews,' is that an incitement to action or an idea?"
Neither. It's an opinion, which should not only be allowed, but there should not even be a debate. Also, people seem to forget that, up until recently, it was okay to say that you wanted the death of an entire group of people. What wasn't okay was to single out a specific, identifiable person. Now, the former is becoming the norm, and you can see this actually covered in many online Terms of Service, which is, on its face, ridiculous in the extreme.
"But I don't think anyone is saying that 'hate speech' is just the expression of ideas. It's the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour."
I AM SAYING THAT. I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you see the swastika on my arm, yet that same swastika can get me arrested in some places. Likewise, I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you hear certain words that I might say. I don't control what goes on inside of your brain when certain auditory or visual impulses hit it.
I AM SERIOUSLY UPSET THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD. You actually believe that the mere conveyance of opinion should be banned because it might cause someone to do something. Think about what kind of world your children and their children will have if this kind of thinking becomes even more pervasive.
The true meaning of life is to continuously evolve towards some end, of which we are presently unaware. Said evolution requires unfettered communication to proceed apace, especially given that "evolution" is now becoming less rampantly biological and more self-directed, such as through technology, particularly nanotechnology. When said communication is censored, in any fashion, evolutionary progress is hampered. Thus, any act of censorship stands against life itself, and is therefore "evil" in the truest sense of the word. That is my belief. It's extreme, it's in the minority, it's completely at odds with yours, and I will firmly hold onto this belief until the day I die.
They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases.
They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics.
> One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.
The difference is that the rational response to "Fire!" is to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, which could lead to injuries etc. (Let's not derail into a prisoner's dilemma discussion about how the "real" rational response is for everyone to make an orderly exit). Anyone who partook in a panicked escape from a purported fire would not be held responsible for incidentally trampling other people who were also trying to escape. On the other hand, the rational response to hearing someone "incite racial hatred" is not to go out and start committing crimes against people belonging to that group.
How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic. The point is that he insulted a severely ill person personally in one of the worst ways possible and doing so through a mass medium doesn't help. I don't see a lot of space for a debate here.
I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action. (hes still in the hospital in critical condition, so I suspect he didn't)
What I am missing in the article is what he actually said.
All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well.
> I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action.
This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question.
> All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well.
Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).
I would agree with this. Since the Stephen Lawrence case in the UK, there's a high degree of sensitivity in the UK towards police handling of race-hate, and hate crimes in general.
It is also maybe difficult to get across to someone viewing in the US what a major news story Muamba's illness has been in the UK, the universal condemnation of the remarks, and more generally the efforts that have gone into eradicating racism from football in the UK. It is very difficult to divorce this from its societal context.
> This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question.
Yes, I am aware of this distinction. But still, saying "*hole" to someone wouldn't most likely be a crime (whats the proper English term for this), so I was just surprised about where the line is drawn.
> Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).
Yes, but 56 days of jail is a lot. Different countries, different handling. In Germany, this would most likely lead to a hefty fine and social work hours, which would still be a pain for a first offender.
Race-related crimes are also taken more seriously in the US.
I didn't see anything in the reported tweets that would be considered criminal in the US, though. We'd certainly jail someone for making real threats or inciting a crime, but not for mere racism.
That makes no sense, I'm sure in the US we've had many more race riots and such (The Rodney King riots and the riots when MLK was assassinated come to mind), but we still offer freedom of speech to idiots.
Besides, from my cursory reading of the Brixton riots, the protestors were mad at police inaction, not hate speech.
Half of the Brixton riots were triggered by someone dying in police custody. The other half were triggered by the Met shooting someone. The Met is regularly accused of institutional racism, so you can see where I'm going there.
The fact there was no right to free speech in English law until 1998 may also be related. (",)
I guess I'm just not seeing the crime. I understand it was a racial comment, but I don't get the impression he made any kind of threat or anything. If he was threatening people and/or saying he was going to commit some crimes, I would understand. It sounds like he was being stupid, but relatively harmless.
I say controversial because racism is still openly expressed in certain circumstances, for example Westboro Baptist Church, though that's the U.S. Most racism, in my opinion, comes from fundamentalists or those associated but of course they aren't the only ones.
I'm probably using out of context example here but WBC protests at dead soldiers funerals regularly, everyone knows that, and they're not touched. Though I suppose protest and direct prejudicial comments aren't in the same ballpark entirely.
I am going to get downvoted here, and WBC would say pretty nasty things about people like me. However, I have never heard anything to suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church are racist. In fact, the founder used to be civil rights lawyer, taking cases that other white attorneys won't touch.
How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic.
Well, it's not clear cut. What can constitute "racism" or not is quite open to interpretation.
Even statements of fact or plain arguments can be interpreted as racist.
For example, if you are against illegal immigration in my country (and many others) you are labeled as "racist", even if the reasons you are against it have nothing to do with race, but say, with border control, lack of supporting infrastructure for too many immigrants, possible use of minorities as a political weapon from surrounding countries, etc.
The way they're beaten is through the people that harbor them, turn the citizens on the terrorists and they won't support them. Support of the population is one of the more important exploits that terrorists use.
I was never really aware of the reason Wozniak left Apple, I figured it was because Jobs was mostly in it for the money and their relationship inevitably went downhill. I remember an interview with Wozniak, something I'll always remember, it went something like this: "I went to Steve and showed him this awesome new system I had been playing with, 'Isn't this awesome?!', I said and he replied 'Holy crap, we could make so much money off of this!', 'I suppose you're right'".
I've heard of the Summer of Code but didn't look into it, I shall. I'm just now getting the basics of github down, adding whatever random code I have around etc.. Also, getting involved in an open source project has crossed my mind but I never did anything about it. Think I'll look for a relatively small program to get involved with, nothing like django or rails at least for now.
