Slashdot Mirror
Finally, A Solution To The DMCA
morcego writes: "Well, finally someone came up with a solution to the DMCA problem.
You can read it on the archive of the Humorix list." Well, combine this with my ULC Reverendship, and we're well underway *grin*.
Freedom of Religion? How 'bout Freedom of Speech? We've already eroded freedom of religion to the point that kids have to fight hard to convince their school administrations to allow Bible clubs, even though such groups are explicitly legal. Oh well. :)
Does this mean that if I sin & distribute DeCSS but confess to it in the DMCA house of god, the evidence can't be used against me in court?
Then the Great Programmer leaned back in his executive chair, and gazed upon the newborn Universe.
And frowned. He knew those sentient humans would be a problem. Even after He had sweated over a hot terminal for thirteen days, those humans were ungrateful. They called their place of existence the "Universe", not the "Great Programmer/Universe".
Richard M Stallman, eat your heart out...!
If God gave us curiosity
The P.I. believes that the holy document was actually written last Wednesday when the High Priest had a little too much to drink.
This procedure for creating a religion seems pretty popular, I believe Scientology was created that way.
> Also note that having sex with a dozen teenage chicks at a time is part of my religion.
Actually, by the time they're teenaged, they're not "chicks" any more. They're just "chickens" at that point.
Virg
In most cases (in America), you cannot break the law in the name of religion. Aztecs cannot sacrifice people, Mormons can't practice polygamy, White Power churches cannot lynch people and violate civil rights, Branch Davidians couldn't violate gun laws and practice statutory rape (depending on who you believe).
However, there are a lot of exceptions, mostly cultural. Amish are except from certain mandatory schooling laws. Native tribes are excempt from prohibitions against hunting endangered animals. Underage Cattholics can drink alcohol as part of services.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
the First Disassembly of God church.
/etc/hosts file.)
In the First Disassembly of God church we seek to reverse engineer the nature of the cosmos and supply weekly diffs and patches at our worship services. (As well as debugging of the faithful, documenting the numberous ways of violating syntax, and distribution of the Wine libraries and
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
WASHINGTON POSTTIMESHEARLD
.0000001% of all our net net revenues. We're very serious about this."
WASHINGTON, DC: Aug 30, 2001
As Congress furiously discussed what to do with the newly discovered "First Church Of Digital Grepping" and its alleged dogma that requires its members to constantly search through copyrighted materials for sacred meaning and salvation, the lobbying organizations for the entertainment and publishing sprang into action.
The entertainments' lawyer and lobbyists have already brought about a marked increase in donations of cash, luxury cars, booze, dope and the deployment of hookers.
One crack addict in a poor neighborhood of DC told us today, "Man, you can't score any good shit with it all going to them Congressmen. We down here smoking Draino and hoping those lobbyists from the entertainment industment get whatever the hell it is they want so we can get our freak back on!"
Another professional worker in the recreational sex business tells relates a similar story, "Geez, it's normally bad enough here with all these Congressmen around. Can't keep in they pants, anyway. You know how it is, if they ain't doing one of us out here, they doing the American people in there. But with all them lawyers and lobbyists working Congress about that Geek Religion thing, its nearly as bad for a sex worker as it is when they ain't no interns around. That's the worst, it's just every ho for themselves then and pray for new load of interns."
Sources within the entertainment industry say their goal is the simple protection of the artists.
One anonymous source said, "Look we all know that the actual artist, the creator who is the principal beneficiary of our actions here. We're going to ensure that the people who create the movies, music and books that we all love and cherish continue to receive their
Another source said that perhaps a solution similar to the one used with Native American peoples would be effective in dealing with "The First Church Of Digital Grepping".
That is, round all them up, march two thousand miles in the middle of winter. Take their computers and ATM cards away from them. Give them habitats in faroff remote Northern rural areas, and allow them to practice their supposed religion two or three times a year, under close Bureau of Geek Affairs supervision.
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
ah, geez, and don't get me started on the "void main" thing.
(that should be "int main")
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
That all depends on if He planned for the universe to ever exit(). We will need to consult the prophets to find the answer.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The unclear part is how to apply this when the each of these two adjacent sentence clauses (no establishment/no prohibition) contradict each other.
It is unclear whether providing overhead (electricity, land, janitorial services etc) support for people egaged in religious activity constitutes a move, however tiny, towards the establishment of religion. Neither is it perfectly clear that forbidding equally all such support to all such groups effectively prohibits their right to excercise freedom of religion.
People tend to see the issue as perfectly clear cut on one side or the other. It isn't, in my opinion. It is perfectly possible, in my view, that the framers left us with situations where those two adjacent phrases give us two contradictory imperatives, at least viewed using two valued logic.
Let A be the proposition that letting the students meet on school property is kind of state establishment of religion. Let B be the proposition that not letting the students meet on school property limits their free excercise of religion.
It's not a black and white issue. Propositions like this aren't true or false in the same way that "3 > 2" or "pi is irrational" are. They are matters of judgement, and can be somewhat true or somewhat false. I happen to think A is practically completely false (but to a tiny degree true); and B is mostly false (but considerably more true than A). Therefore, I favor the students being allowed to meet, but I can see how other people would have different opinions.
Since neither A, nor B is anything like 50% true, I'm not going to get very worked up either way. Since there is not way to split the difference (the students are allowed to meet on the property or they are not), then either decision is somewhat good and somewhat bad.
Now, if the policy where not applied equally to atheists, jews, pagans, muslims and christians, then I would definitely get very excited about it, since it would be a clear step towards establishment.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.