Borked the link to Copyfree

I had vague memories of the WTFPL being recommended against because it was no different to a PD declaration. The for the license says it was rejected by OSI on that basis. I'm not sure I follow the logic, since it doesn't reference public domain in any way. Weirdly, the same page also says v2 was accepted as a "Copyfree" license -- pointing to Copyfree.org where the WTFPL isn't even listed.

Snowden committed crimes.

Allegedly.

For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.

For the rule of law, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

The only person who can know if he 'undoubtedly' did commit a crime are the judge and jury in court. If you let that go the second you think "He don't look right..." or "Well, I saw on the news that..." then you're throwing the whole judicial process on the scrapheap. This even applies if you "saw him do it" a.k.a. "I (think) I saw him do it and I'm (pretty) sure he did" - and even if he confesses.

It may seem like syntactic sugar but you'll do yourself a lot of good if you start inserting "allegedly" into any statement you make about an individual pre-trial - and subconsciously do so when reading other people's information-free opinionfacts. For the record I think he's guilty as sin of the law, but that the law is probably wrong.

Absolutelty. My house is wired so that when I plug in a high load device it electrocutes the neighbours kids. One of them nearly died when I got my new 8 slice toaster, I dread to think what would happen if I plugged in a car?!

Tesla should be ashamed of themselves!

Unfortunately, it's the boundaries of how un-newsworthy content can be and still be called "news".

Someone I've never heard of does dodgy SEO, gets banned by Google, then gets the ban lifted (+- unproven allegation of favouritism) and I'm supposed to give a shit?

Happens every day, almost entirely to other people I've never heard of either.

Ah, I see - you chose to take their post literally.

I chose to assume the caveat "Except the obvious shit" to apply.

I was being facetious. But when you add the "Except the obvious shit" caveat you then introduce "who gets to decide what is obvious".

Perhaps we can all agree "I support sunset clauses on bad laws!" and be done with it?

I don't make that assumption at all (and I don't agree with it either). As I wrote elsewhere:

What I can't agree with is applying sunset clauses to laws that are intended to last. The solution to "Some laws are bad" is not "Let's make laws last for less time and then renew them!" it's "Let's make better laws". If a law is so bad you can't bear to enact it unless it is automatically repealed in 5 years - it's probably not a very good law. All this accomplishes is feeding short-termism, allowing politicians off the hook for their crap. "Hey I passed a law! (But don't worry it won't do any real harm because it'll be off the books before we see the consequences)."

Sunset clauses increase legislative overhead. There are two outcomes from this that I can see:

1. the politicians are overworked so they are able to produce fewer laws, and so fewer laws (bad and good) are passed
2. the politicians are overworked so they are less able to usefully debate/deconstruct laws, and more bad laws are passed

From your post it sounds as though you are advocating for position #1 - that is by making politicians revisit their laws, fewer laws are passed and so the bad laws will be reduced. However, if we apply sunsetting to everything then we also lose good laws. If you think this is on balance an optimum solution then sunsetting is a strange way to approach it - you can have the same effect by simply reducing the numbers of politicians*. That also has the benefit of saving money.

(* the Constitution may have a problem with this - but that's something that can be dealt with when you sunset that and revisit it).

I fall more on the side of position #2 in that I want elected representatives to spend their time doing maximally useful work. I do think there are probably too many laws, but that the most efficient way to deal with that is through progressively revisiting and repealing those that are deemed counterproductive (by the same debate process as sunsetting). I would argue quite strongly that such review should be carried out.

Like the Constitution?

Just to clarify - I'm not against sunset clauses in all cases. But I am against the idea (expressed in the original post) that "There really should be sunset provisions on all laws." Some things don't need regular repeal - some laws are just that good. Like laws against murder. Similarly, short term laws to cover things (like getting back on topic corn subsidies) make sense as a short term financial instrument. There sunsetting makes sense - and gives a defined end point for companies that depend on the subsidy.

What I can't agree with is applying sunset clauses to laws that are intended to last. The solution to "Some laws are bad" is not "Let's make laws last for less time and then renew them!" it's "Let's make better laws". If a law is so bad you can't bear to enact it unless it is automatically repealed in 5 years - it's probably not a very good law. All this accomplishes is feeding short-termism, allowing politicians off the hook for their crap. "Hey I passed a law! (But don't worry it won't do any real harm because it'll be off the books before we see the consequences)."

Bundling these things into cumulative bills would mean they'll get so little oversight that they may as well be permanent. They're hardly read the first time, what makes you think anyone will pay attention to what the law says when it's on page 543?

Huh? That makes no sense. So, basically, you're saying that it takes more time to buy (or not buy) a car someone built than it would take for you to engineer and build a car yourself. That's nuts, yo.

Quite obviously, no. In bigpat's OP they stated that: "There really should be sunset provisions on all laws." This is clearly nonsensical. Or would you argue that there should be sunset provisions on the laws against murder? The Constitution? If not then you accept there is a class of laws for which sunset clauses don't apply (i.e. laws that will be a good law for a long period of time). "There really should be sunset provisions on all laws." is demonstrably false.

If you want to argue that laws against murder get sunset clauses attached and renewed on a decade-by-decade basis assuming "Senator Bob" remembers please do, but I want it as a car analogy.

As opposed to months of 'closed doors' meetings, secret deals with lobbyists, writes and re-writes and re-re-writes, etc.

Because that is of course the only alternative. I'm starting to wonder whether you're ticking off a list of logical fallacies here, you've already managed a Straw man, Either or and False analogy.

That had nothing to do with sunsetting laws, and everything to do with the fact that our Congress is made up of, essentially, narcissistic 5th graders.

Ad hominem.

I'll take your final point though I was thinking of the budget not the fiscal cliff. In other countries the previous budget continues to run until a new one is in place. As a result the running government can't be held hostage to the whim of Senator Bob on an off day. It's not always a simple case of "yea or nay?"

Er, no. Sunset clauses are a terrible waste of government time. Just think about it - if every law you pass gets a sunset clause, that means cumulatively over time you're spending a bigger and bigger portion of your time renewing previous laws to make them still active. You end up with situations like the US "fiscal cliff" - which miraculously every other mature democracy on Earth manages to avoid.

Any good law will be a good law for a long period of time. If it becomes not a good law, repeal it. If you're not sure it's a good enough law to last, don't pass it.

Is it just me, or does it seem like everyone now-a-days is trying very hard to come up with new methodologies and paradigms and web 6.5isms, so they can get their 5 minutes in the lime light?

That's nothing. My new product turns the light plaid.

Competition is good but if the government is doing it this must be socialism.

Does it also detect Slashdot dupes?

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/11/20/161244/google-patents-fooling-friends-with-snooping-chatbots

I said. Does it also detect Slashdot dupes?

Sounds great!

I'm not entirely sure it doesn't work the other way around: <rain>"We're on BST - so I guess it must be summer."</rain>