Slashdot Mirror

Do I really have to drag that Niemöller quote out again? Just because you personally aren't hurt by this particualar iteration of DRM doesn't mean it isn't still evil and should be boycotted!

Clinging to a principle for no practical reason is fanaticism, it's just that when it's YOUR principle, suddenly it's all about morality and your rights. Right?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/firs t.html

The person testifying here is an example of a coward. Notice anything familiar...?

How on earth did you get modded up to 5 without actually saying anything?

If succinct styles or literal subtlety elude you, studying poetry can be beneficial.

Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?

Why do people who make naive, idealistic comments think they're stating something worth modding up?

Please, don't consider this a personal criticism, I simply dislike your thoughts on the subject.

= 9J =

Except that people are often referred to as, eg., "Mr. Malcolm", or just "Malcolm". So "omitting the quotes" (as Google often recommends when there are few search results) is appropriate. In any event, it's perfectly clear from the content of even just a few of those pages that it's the same sue-happy Jeremy Malcom that we're dealing with here.

The entire point of trademark (as encoded here in the US in the "Lanham Act") is to protect the consumer from mistaking one product for another with the same name ("mark dilution"). It's so oriented to the consumer (at least in principle in the US) that the mark holder is required to "vigorously defend" the mark from dilution: failure to take action to protect the identifiability from dilution, when the mark holder is aware of the dilution, can result in the diluter claiming the mark for themself.

What's wrong with the world is that 1> people trust lawyers (at all, certainly too much), and 2> people are quick to back up these thieves when they too would like to "get rich quick" by stealing someone else's property. Just check the ridiculous flames defending Malcolm I've had to douse in my own threads, to say nothing of the others rampant on this site. Fascists are always quick to squeal "ditto", but (to paraphrase Niemoller) there's always a bigger fish, and the penultimate brownshirt is just bait.

Having a picture of something doesn't mean you endorse that act. For instance, do you really believe that the people who access this site actually performed or supported an act of sex between a male tranvestite and a hairy midget?

The whole question about pornography, be it legal or illegal acts, is not about the performance per se, but about the "slippery slope" of censorship. What the US Constitution states in its first ammendment is that the expression of ideas is not to be restricted, no matter how revolting those ideas may be to anyone. Being free to speak only "nice" things is not what liberty means.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

You need to remember that you are either with or against Microsoft, and you are against them unless your software is to be distributed only by them. If we don't stand together, we will fall. Trying to help them pick off the FSF is the worst thing possible you can do.

Microsoft's patents will stop you too.

Mac and Linux users should be concerned. If it works for Windows, they will port to other platforms.

Remember, First they came for the Jews

We shouldn't wait until they come for us.

Indeed. But under a dictatorship - and under the pre-war military dictatorship in Japan - opposition to the military tends to be aggresively put down. I'd suggest it speaks volumes about the Japanese character that from earflier epsiodes in China and Korea, up to as late as 1945, there was some - understandably limited - opposition to the military.

Live in a dictatorship for a while - then criticize the silence of those who suffered it. As others have said, it's not always easy to speak out when you're afraid.

First they came for the tanker trucks, and I did not speak out because I don't drive tanker trucks.

The price of freedom is vigilance. To ignore transgressions of your freedom, is to loose that freedom, inch, by inch, by inch.
No matter how silly or worthy of an *eyeroll* that inch may be.

This sounds more like a child than a government. The logic appears to be, "It's mine because I want it."

And notice how often they say "illegal." Three times in the first paragraph.

This is incoherent because I'm outraged. All I can think of is these words, and the lizards. Outraging the citizens is not a good way to maintain a stable government.

Of course, don't be too surprised if you meet this page trying to follow any of these links. It's theirs, because they want it.

First they came for the Jews