Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Archives, Leak, Fanfilm
Alacritech settles litigation with MSFT and BRCM An anonymous reader writes "Alacritech, Microsoft Corporation and Broadcom Corporation today announced that they have entered into agreements that settle all outstanding disputes between Alacritech and Microsoft, as well as provide Microsoft and Broadcom access to Alacritech's patent portfolio relating to scalable networking. (Previously mentioned on Slashdot here and here.)"
Sir, you have no right to read about your rights. Hobart writes "Richard Stallman has just posted on his personal website a request for his readers to 'Don't Buy Harry Potter Books,' and offered to leak the plot - in protest of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling forbidding the purchasers from reading the books they paid for. A memorable quote in the Times article says '...There is no human right to read.'"
Don'tcha think felony is a bit strong for a few button presses? ZombyHero writes "In a follow-up to a previous story, the 13 high school students from Kutztown, PA charged with felony computer trespassing for violating district usage policy are fighting back. They've hired lawyers have begun talking with the Assistant DA. As a former student of the school, I know that the district is used to getting its way. Hopefully this will knock them down a few notches."
Starship Exeter flies again! An anonymous reader writes "There's a new episode of Starship Exeter, a fan-made feature set in the original series Star Trek universe. The new episode, The Tressaurian Intersection, follows on from The Savage Empire, which was featured on Slashdot before. This time it's better than ever... better than the original series, in fact! You can watch the entire episode online."
Treasure hunts, commence. We've posted quite a few interesting applications for Google's mapping service; now phauly writes "I created an Animated Google Map (with some gnus and mozillas attacking Microsoft office) using Google Maps API. I think it would be easy to create real playable Games on Google Maps. For sharing ideas (and implementations!) I created the Games on Google Maps wiki page. For now some ideas are: risk, freeciv, freecraft, car races on real maps! Feel free to edit the page suggesting/revising/implementing ideas."
Isn't that what dupes are for?
They're not there yet in terms of funding, it seems. But if unfettered fanfic productions could compete, it begs the question of whether the competition would weed out the weak and determine the best as the winner or if it would fracture the support of the fan base so much that no project could obtain sufficient funding.
Start a happiness pandemic
The author of the controversial Linux Desktop of the Future essay has posted a follow up article containing clarifications and defying misconceptions.
No, but he does have quite the "mad prophet in the desert" hair and beard.
- G
Start a happiness pandemic
Imagine the complexity one could introduce to the game...Maybe not use individual troops, but use something similar to Axis and Allies, where each piece represents approximately one division/squadron/task force (maybe ships only represent one ship... has been awhile). Lay siege to your hometown, and animate peasants running through the streets.
Then again, maybe we can adapt Trogdor to play out against SCO's offices...
#define CLUE 0
Or do we need patents on website content? Copywrites? Or can we trust people to not steal?
For example, say there is a college kid who really likes beer and porn. He likes it so much, he sets up a website that becomes popular, it lists different beers, and reviews porn. One drunken night, this college kid uses his cell phone to take a couple low resolution pictures of himself having sex, and he puts it up.
A few years pass, somehow he graduates and starts looking for work. Someone tells him that his website comes up when googled, and that might not be the best thing when it comes for finding work.
So the guy pulls the plug. beerandporn dot com dies. Or did it? It seems others liked his hobby as well, and downloaded all the content, and started hosting it. Problem is, google now links to these new sites, with his face and work for the world to see.
Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations?
I'll give one more example. A woman who is 26 years old has 2 kids, and no skills. She got knocked up by a bum. Now she is working in a grocery store, as a check out clerk for $7 an hour, not enough to feed and cloth her family.
She starts up a website where she gets naked. She is making good money, and she manages to make enough to get a nicer place to live, feed her kids, and go to college. A couple years later, she takes down the website. She has a good job. But someone decides to put the content back up. Her kids are now 13 years old. Her employeer also knows how to use google. Should people judge her based on who she used to be, what she did to survive within a specific context of existance?
If someone wants to put up a website, they have that right. But it appears that people don't have a right to remove their content from circulation. That is the problem.
The great thing about life is people can change, they can move away to a new community, they can start over. The internet in some ways is making that impossible. It is like jobs that do credit checks, to work as a secretary they want to know how much money you owe, and if you paid it off on time.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
It would be nice if the editors would correct the stories before the are published.
Just recently, Obviously misspelled, inaccurate, and late articles have been shown what a horrible "editing" job they've done.
They need to stop worrying about the moderation system which has suffocated dissent, and worry about the content, which has been long in decline.
Does anyone else think that this might be the end of RMS? I mean, it's one thing to take on the software industry, but it's quite another to take on the publishers of Harry Potter.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You know, as much as the community complains about /. spelling problems, when you see this printed as the headline in a newspaper article:
it's a sad, sad day.
Maybe the damn editor should go back to high school.
By the way, if anyone contacts me anonymously giving me some of the plot information that these Canadians have been forbidden to read in the books they bought, I will post the information. I am not a Harry Potter fan, and I would not have greatly minded whether I learned the plot of this book tomorrow, Saturday, next year, or never; but when governments spit on human rights, humans must protest. I suggest that anyone wishing to leak this information call me at +1-617-253-8830 from a pay phone.
Did this guy just put up his phone number on the internet??
In my opinion, with regards to Harry Potter, is if someone has read the book, who cares if that person tells others what he thinks. Are the publishers worried this person might ruin the advertising campaign by saying "it sucks", or by giving a spoiler? I could understand how that would piss people off.
This reminds me of the movie "Basic Instinct", with Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone (the movie where she shows her twat). Anyways, some lesbian-homo weirdo group, in protest that the movie makes lesbians look like werdios, decided to leak the ending. They group had people go to movie theaters and talk about the ending of the movie, while people waited in line to buy the tickets.
So I guess idiots can ruin anything.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
This is not a new problem.
The case against the wayback machine is particularly interesting here, as it shows the internet's natural route-around-censorship/deletion (through things like the google cache, and archive.org) being contested by those who hold the copyrights on said material. Its been long acknowledged that storing people's websites indefinitely is something that could place mirror/cache hosters in a legal grey area, but it seems that most knowledgeable internet publishers have come to accept that their content will be archive & stored and place safeguards accordingly (like approval-to-publish CMS systems and in-house content review).
Business websites are perhaps a special case, as to me their public front represents almost a brochure of their services, with advertising text and relevant numbers. I don't really see why data like that being historically available (as it would be in any other format) is such a big problem, especially for a trademark dispute.
Business Voyeur
It was not the "Canadian Supreme Court" that made this ruling, it was the Supreme Court of British Columbia, according to the link new report. I know foreign geography is tough for Americans. It does make a difference - I am virtually certain that the injunction would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada if it was ever taken that far.
Beware the Ghost Of Usenet Postings Past
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
No, it was not the Canadian Supreme Court (aka the Supreme Court of Canada) that permitted the injunction.
Instead, it was the Supreme Court of British Colombia that made that ruling. There's a world of difference, just like the difference between the State Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
It would be nice if the submitter of the story (or the editor who summarized it) could RTFA, but I guess that would be too much for Slashdot
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
If you don't want something to come back and bite you in the ass, don't do it.
If you don't want all the world to see your life on the Internet, don't expose it.
Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations? Only if he feels like enforcing the copyright on public record.
Should people judge her based on who she used to be? Only if she's less than honest about it, in which case she has already judged herself.
And before you try to tell me I don't know what it's like: Yes, I do. I have a website, and I take care not to put personally identifiable stuff on it. I have no sympathy for Jenni Ringley and her ilk.
"You can watch the entire episode online."
Not correct.
Here's quotes from the official page about it
Part one:
" This portion of "The Tressaurian Intersection" is
in the final stages of post production.
for details, please visit EXETERSTUDIO.COM."
Part two:
" This portion of "The Tressaurian Intersection" is
scheduled for release on Friday, July 22, 2005."
Part three:
" This portion of "The Tressaurian Intersection" is
scheduled for release on Friday, August 5, 2005."
Credits:
" This portion of "The Tressaurian Intersection" is
scheduled for release on Friday, August 19, 2005."
Thanks for getting my hopes up and not bothering to check if you could actually watch it before submitting it.
The War Between the Pitiful Teachers and the Splendid Kids
0 578026/102-5071418-2785734?v=glance
Best Book EVER.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038
Wesley crosses a Tressaurian street in flagrant violation of the Tressaurian "Don't Walk!" sign and is sentenced to death, with sexy results.
A more legitimate question would be if someone such as Google or archive.org is allowed to redistribute content it finds on sites, which is what it does by showing you its cached versions of those sites.
A more legitimate question would be if people such as Google or archive.org are allowed to redistribute content they find on sites, which is what they do by showing you their cached versions of those sites.
Remember that phrase, you're going to hear it a lot.
The crime that was committed was unauthorized distribution by the store selling the books. Copyright owners do not have any authority over you reading a book, only copying it. But they want that authority. And "no right to read" is the phrase they will use to get it.
I think I liked the old universe better. You know, the one where Richard Stallman seemed like a nut with crazy predictions of the future?
The enemies of Democracy are
I've heard of worst protests than the one Richard proposes...But, quote the article:You need to hurt Raincoast Books and the Canadian Supreme Court [sic--really B.C.], not J.K. Rowling, or the U.S. publisher of her books, Arthur A. Levine Books, or anyone else.To protest the publisher, don't buy ANY Raincoast Books. If you are a
If you aren't in Canada, laugh at them. What else do you expect from a counyty where a pizza can get to your house faster than an ambulance, there is handicap parking places in front of a skating rink, and people leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put useless junk in the garage?
Or do we need patents on website content?
Seeing as website content is not an invention, I'd say not.
Copywrites? [sic]
Anything published is given automatic copyright -- and copyright is the thing that would disallow all the examples you gave below.
So the guy pulls the plug. beerandporn dot com dies. Or did it? It seems others liked his hobby as well, and downloaded all the content, and started hosting it. Problem is, google now links to these new sites, with his face and work for the world to see.
Should this guy have a right to erase his past creations?
The guy has a right to expect -- and demand -- that his creations aren't republished and redistributed. It's really that simple. He could request Google to remove it from their cache, which they'd do, and he could ask archive.org to do the same. This is really not and dilemma, and your hypothesis that things you have done in the past may bear upon the things you do in the future is neither interesting nor insightful.
In the end This is not realy abut the right to read, but property rights. If I legally buy a product, that is legally available(and by that I mean that is in not on a government list of contraband), then I should be able to use it any way unless it was stipulated prior to the purchase that such use was forbidden.
Certainly all that is idealized, and it is often necessary to put restrictions on certain property after the fact, but what we are talking about in this case it a book. I do not know of any law that says it is illegal to buy a book before the official release data. I know of no law that says it is illegal to talk about a book before the release date. There are contract terms that prevent these things, but i doubt the purchasers of this book signed any of those contracts. It is really the fault of the retail outlets that sold the books, and any consequences are theirs
If I cared about this lame corporate utterances, and had a copy of the book, i would have read it and posted a review. I am happy that the kids have something to read, and that they are reading, but at the end of the day this just proves that absolute power leads absolutely to evil.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
When you publish, that's it - you cannot retract what you put in public for others to read.
Furthermore while you should be allowed to no longer present what you like, for research needs I absolutly think that anyone who is capabile of doing so shoudl be able to store and re-present data you have publically published.
To go back to your example, lets say years later that woman (or that man) runs for president. Would you (as a citizen) want that hidden or want a clean vetting of a persons past details?
Now lets take this another way. Say you can make whatever you publish disappear. So then is it OK for news sites or blogs to change what they had published in the past, while disallowing anyone to make note of there being a change and what the old content was?
If you plan to do embarrassing things, don't do them in public. people need to be RESPONSIBLE for past actions. I said some dumb things on Usenet when I was younger in college (incidentally usenet archives are why we'll never see a technically oriented gen-Xer in a high-ranking public position) but I just have to deal with whatever happens as a result of past actions.
Personally I think the site in question falls into the category of historical recording, and I think is important. If it can't store anything we are all screwed from the standpoint of having any accurate history of out time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Pecking Order for BC:
-
Supreme Court of Canada Court of last resort
-
BC Court of Appeals Normally sits as 3 judges but can reconsider it's own rullings with a bank of 5 or 7
-
BC Supreme Court Civil court, major felonies and appeals of lower courts
-
BC Provincial Court non-indictable crimes
Somewhere about the provincial court level you can also throw in family and small claims court.BTW: The injunction is probably unconstitutional, but I can't see anybody appealing it.. By the time the appeal went thru, the book would be released. I'm guessing that the judge who issued it just didn't want to face down his/her kids for not protecting 'ol Harry.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
And praise the most holy one that will save us from the wasted hours of reading corporate blah blah. Fortunately the universe is bountiful and giveth us many other ways to waste out time.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If you'd used 'private intranet' or even 'password protected' I'd have bought it. Your obviously overlooking some things.
:)
Primarily the fact that the internet is not by definition a private place. Websites are very public.
A more astute analogy for your innocent porn loving beer drinker would have been if in college he liked hanging out in strip clubs and on day decided to have public sex, a few years later a friend of his tells him he googled and found an image of him having (public) sex.
Public webpages should be considered no more private then your public life.
If what your doing shouldn't be available to the public then keep it private. Its not that difficult.
Of course your second example treads similar water. Your ladies website would have been decidedly more private (unless she was doing it more as a hobby and left it open) so public archiving services wouldn't be showing as much.
Both your examples seem to carry the same basic pretense: you can do things on the internet you might be ashamed of, publicly, and then simly erase them in a stroke of the delete key and they never happened.
I wish real life worked like that too sometimes.
Quack, quack.
from RMS's website:
" Here's the text of a complaint that I am sending to the TSA for misleading treatment at Logan Airport.
When I continued to verbally criticize the conduct of the agents, and didn't sit down and shut up, they called the State Police, and one Officer Gillespie told me that "Unless you shut up I will throw you out." I asked if that meant he would arrest me for speaking, and he said, "No, for making a scene." (Different words for the same act.) I told him that was bullying and abuse of power, and refused to shut up. "
Stallman doesn't seem to understand that the right to free speech doesn't also mean the right to a platform for free speech. Airlines rent space at airports, and if they don't want you there because your a belligerent ass, then they have the right to call the cops to kick you out. You don't have the right to make people listen to you, RMS.
Vote for Pedro
Probably because Israel is an occupying power, freely using vastly suprerior military power to enforce their dominion over the Palestinians. While all killing is reprehensable, using the power of the state to dominate and control an entire minority population is pretty far down on the scale of human endeavor.
Guess I'm one of those self hating types. Thanks for playing.
You've got the format of a 'if you denounce A without denouncing B, you must support B' down to a science. I hope you're proud of your achievement. But where is your post denouncing the drowning of kittens? And have you finally gotten around to stopping beating your wife?
Wow why don't you just come right and say you HATE Canadians. I mean you dig so deep for laughably trivial (not to mention overblown and generalized) examples why they're so hateable that you might as well just write for all to read "I AM A BIGOT. I HATE CANADIANS BECAUSE THEY THEY ARE SILLY AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS WORTHY OF MOCKING AND RIDICULE."
By the way, Mr. Canadian hater, there is no such entity as the "Canadian Supreme Court." To blindly accept (a sadly inaccurate) article that claims there is is just plain ignorant.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
And also, federal employees, i.e. TSA employees, aren't required to listen to RMS's speech either under the constitution. TSA security is there to enforce security, not put up with his bs. If he thinks TSA procedures are wrong, or doesn't like the conduct of a particular agent, arguing with the agent isn't going to solve anything. He should try exercising his "free speech" in a court room, and see how long before they throw him out after he fails to obey the judge telling him to shut up.
Vote for Pedro
"Don't write anything on the internet that you wouldn't want the world to find out."
To put it another way, the "forward" button is just a mouse click away.
I understand what you are saying, but remember that a word's forever, and when we speak we set them free.
I don't hate Candadians. Far from.
I just appreciate humor, as do other Canadians, who I borrowed my jokes from. Sorry that you and the mod who dinged me as a troll don't agree. I didn't mean to offend.
Re. Supreme Court. I just pasted the quote. In my ammended post, I said "really B.C.".
.....what's wrong with Clearly Canadian?!?
Yup--Canada has a different publisher than the rest of the world.
I've seen this type of agenda from a lot of liberals [...] What troubles me, is on RMS's long laundrey list of causes, there is nothing denouncing Hamas, Hezbollah, Isamic Jihad, etc. It seems somewhat anti-semitic to criticize Israel without bothering to criticize Israel's enemies, given their goals and tactics.
And I've seen that type of agenda from a lot of right-wingers: equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Israel is a country led by politicians, and criticizing their government's actions is a political statement, not a religious or ethnic one.
There's already plenty of criticism directed towards terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. They don't have to be denounced in every discussion of the conflict, just like al-Qaeda doesn't have to be denounced in every discussion of the 9/11 attacks - it's implied because we all know who they are and what they do.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
inform();
He's also got one of the 9/11 quack sites second in his "links" section.
RMS has never understand that the right to free speech is NOT the right to force others to listen to your bullshit. But he isn't alone in that; we're surrounded by people who believe the very same thing and refuse to accept a world where anyone not interested in what you have to say can simply walk away.
Or, if you're on their property, tell you to either shut the fuck up or leave.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
If you didn't RTFA then you missed the student's website
I haven't read any of the books or seen any of the movies but I can guess the plot is something like "stupid dork gets picked on by bullies but through virtue of some hidden talent he manages to defeat a great evil and save the world".
Uhhh, a state police officer has no right to throw you out of anywhere for "making a scene".
How we know is more important than what we know.
(Assuming this isn't a prank) Dear asshole: Next time you're going to post spoilers, either give a fracking warning or post a link rather than plaintext. And who modded this jerk up?
People have had foolish incidents from their past haunt them long before the internet was around. People do stupid things, and one of the deterrants against doing stupid things is that they may catch up to you in the future. Plenty of people have had their reputations/careers impacted upon when an old news article, police report, etc has surfaced... sorry but we don't need dumn legal wrangling to protect people from their own stupidity.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Perhaps a few private bush pilots in West and Alaska can do that. Not the airlines, however. You and I, as citizens, own that airport -- those corporations could never stomach the cost and long term investment and good management required to run a private airport; the airlines all operate with subsidies of their terminal space. In addition, you and I as citizens actually own about 1/4 to 1/2 of many airlines -- you see those airlines got people to work for them for less money by promising to pay them a pension when they were old, and then found the payments inconvient; the government's (our) Pension Guarantee Corporation took over paying the pensions and in exchange got hefty chunks of stock.
I think Free Market Capitalism is a great idea, and is the best form for advancing the progress and prosperity of humanity. I would like to see it tried in my life time. Immagine it, a system where investors put in money took the risk of losing it with no guarantee of a paternalistic bailout ! When they fuck up a stern justice system enforces their debts and prosecutes attempts to escape the hand of the market via fraud and theft ! Those companies would be well run. Heck, I might invest myself.
A quicker correction to your correction.
The 3rd episode of New Voyages is the one with Chekov, and is also written by D.C. Fontana, and the fourth is written by the DS9 writers.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I was aware that it was the regional court - I apologize for not making it clear in the submission. I was trying to be terse, and I should've used their full title.
Jon (an American fan of Labatt Blue, Tim Hortons, and Poutine)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Many western cultures have introduced very open laws regarding the right to peaceful protests. If that happens to be on your lawn, you do not have the right to remove them forcibly, otherwise you are assaulting them. The appropriate way to deal with it is to negotiate with them or call the police. Remember you do not own your land in the sense it is yours to do with as you want. Property rights are given to you by the government, and they are limited by the laws that prevail.
As another example, if you walk onto my lawn with metal spikes in the ground, you can and probably would sue me.
Boycotting the book and movie will clearly have the desired effect. The author and her publisher put this silly publicity stunt together, and if it backfires by not making them as much money as they hoped, they won't do it again. Or they will, but they will send the word down the chain of supply that court cases resulting in bad publicity will not get you "preferred vendor status" or whatever.
If you are boycotting, you have to boycott the economic engine that is driving the whole thing.
mmmmmmmmmmmm timmy ho.
That's one of the many reasons I love to visit the inlaws in Michigan. There's a Tim Horton's on the way to Flint leaving Saginaw. Safest place on earth at 3AM cause the parking lot is full of cops.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I don't mind. The publishers fought for an injunction (and won in BC) against revealing information on something that people didn't even sign an NDA on.
That seems like a step in the very wrong direction. And with politics, only a few steps have to be taken before one falls right over the cliff. So, eh, why not "stick it to the man"? Or whatnot.
Sorry again. :)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
For every slashdotter who won't read Potter at Stallman's behest, there are several who will download it, probably even before it's released.
Wrong. If the owner or their designated agent request it, the police an remove a person from anywhere, and issue a trespass warrant barring one's return. You don't even have to make a scene.
Disturbing the peace is a crime. Making a scene can be disturbing the peace and can get you arrested.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Anyone interested in reading more about schoolboard insanity can find (far too) many stories like this one at zerointelligence.net
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
... simply visit stallman.org and follow tinyurl. What troubles me more is that in the very same moment he removed his cellurar phone number given for anonymous contact from illegal HP readers, and i'm not sure i have his web page in cache.
This Is Not a Sig
Wrong. If the owner or their designated agent request that you leave their property and you refuse the police can remove you. They can't just assult you without provocation. God I hate you bend-over-for-the-man wussies.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wrong again.
From personal experience, I know what I am talking about. I was in a store. Someone didn't like my looks and called the cops. I didn't do anything and no one asked me to leave. Cops came, the manager swore out a trespass warrant, and I was escorted from the property.
God I hate you think-you-know-it-all dumb asses.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Property rights, like all rights, are yours (in essence) because you are a human being. Governments should recognize and protect those rights. The failure of a government to recognize and protect a right does not make it "not a right."
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Being annoying isn't a crime, neither is "contempt of cop". The problem is when you get police officers, or other authority figures, who are unable to deal with criticism or resistance in a rational manner.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Sigh, "escorted" is not the same as "dragged kicking and screaming".. it's really simple, IF you are asked to leave AND you refuse THEN the police (or the owner or owner's delgate) may use force to remove you. If they don't ask you to leave and just start assaulting you they are breaking the law. Otherwise how would you know the difference between someone assaulting you to get you out of the store vs someone assaulting you because they didn't like your T-shirt. Oh, and BTW, if you have paid for goods and not yet received them, it is illegal for them to forcably remove you from the premises even if they have requested that you leave.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If that happens to be on your lawn, you do not have the right to remove them forcibly, otherwise you are assaulting them.
That might be true in the People's Republic of California, but it isn't true where I live. Stepping onto somebody's property ininvited is called 'trespass', as is refusing to leave when told to. It is perfectly acceptable to use force to remove them from the property if they refuse to do so on their own. Shooting them might be a bit extreme, but taking a hose and washing them down won't get you into trouble. If they're too stupid to leave when told to get the fuck off your property, they deserve what they get.
Property rights are given to you by the government
No, they aren't. Property rights are inherent; governments exist to help you enforce your natural rights against assholes who believe they can violate them at will, not to 'grant' to you what's already yours. In any free society the government is a servant bound to protect the individual; it isn't the lord and master dispensing favors to the chosen.
As another example, if you walk onto my lawn with metal spikes in the ground, you can and probably would sue me.
In my state if you walk onto my property and put your foot into a bear trap I've left out (for the purpose of taking out an annoying bear, of course), it's your own damned fault. If you didn't want to get injured you shouldn't have trespassed. Here we have this idea of 'taking responsibility for one's actions, especially the stupid ones', although it seems to be rapidly going out of vogue.
But that's the world you get when you let a bunch of sniveling, socialist pussies seize power. Everything belongs to them, and whatever scraps they deem to dispense to you are 'favors' that you're supposed to be eternally grateful for....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Property rights are not like any other human rights; they are graceful given out by the government and usually have many very particular clauses of what you can and cant do with it. You will find the government still holds a very strong hold on the plot you call Home Sweet Home. Your human rights include living happily and other such wonderful things, but the American Bill of Rights does not give every American a plot of land to own.
In the case of the hand-waving raving lunatic on your lawn, the government has two individuals rights that it needs to protect. In the case of a peaceful lunatic impeding on my use of my property, say for example someone with Downs syndrome pissing on my roses, I must acknowledge that the government does not care whether it is the land that I have property rights too; the trespasser has rights too.
It sounds like you would rather shoot them. I suggest you do another walk around your property, just to be sure you are safe.
taking responsibility for one's actions, especially the stupid onesagreed. However taking responsibility for ones own actions includes thinking about how your actions may affect others around you; that is, if you want to live peacefully with your neighbours.
I keep lots of bees and barbwired electric fence around a house I dont frequent too often, but there are signs clearly alerting any wanderer that they may want to pass on without stopping for long.
"There has to be some kind of back up plan for punishment."
yes indeed! punish at all costs!
but there are signs clearly alerting any wanderer that they may want to pass on without stopping for long.
I have signs as well. They say: "Trespassers will be shot without warning." They've proven to be *much* more effective than the standard "No Trespassing" sign.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Sir, you have no right to read about your rights. Hobart writes "Richard Stallman has just posted on his personal website a request for his readers to 'Don't Buy Harry Potter Books,' and offered to leak the plot - in protest of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling forbidding the purchasers from reading the books they paid for. A memorable quote in the Times article says '...There is no human right to read.'"
If you bought it you should read it. Had I been one of those lucky enough to get it earlier, the Fibbies, the CIA and the Mounties would have had to pry it from my cold, dead hands to get me to turn it back in and the headlines would have been great: "Adult Potter Fan Dies Before Turning in Sixth Book".
I believe Canada's ruling was wrong but this asshole goes and nearly proves them right by threatening to post the content. I've worked really hard since the release date was announced to keep spoilers out of view. I've avoided all but the main pages of two HP websites where I know spoilers won't be posted on the front page. I've kept even speculation posts with other fans to a minimum because I really want this book to be a new experience.
The last thing I need at this point is some damned reporter *cough*Katie Couric*cough* casually mentioning who gets killed or broad hints about who the HBP is while I'm flipping past her first thing in the morning. No injunction that I know of can keep people from reporting common knowledge and once it's anywhere on the internet, you can make a decent argument for common knowledge since the information, whether you want it or not, can be had for the sake of a mouse click.
Had I found the books, I would have bought one and there is no way in hell I would have ever turned mine back in. By the same turn, I would have never, under any circumstances, spoiled them for anyone else.
True HP Fans Don't Tell.
n/t
The Stallman link now has possible spoilers (maybe stallman fell for a prank?) but you should mention that on the front page.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
However, Stallman and yourself are wrong about the Israel thing. The moot point is.... there is no Plaestine, never has been. To paraphrase Goebbles, "if you say a lie often enough, it becomes true". This is what has happened with "Palestine". Just becasue I decide I want the road I live on to become independant of the rest of the country, doesn't mean that is should be, even if I start blowing things up to proove my point.
If I call myself a Youngerpantsian from the nation state of Younger, it doesnt matter how many times I say it, its not true, i'm still british from the UK.
Now, I cant condone military action on behalf of the Israelis, but likewise, I can't condone fundamentalists starting the trouble in the first place.
Karma be dammed, I'm posting this as me, then some people may actually read it instead of believing what Fox News tells them.
Just becasue I decide I want the road I live on to become independant of the rest of the country, doesn't mean that is should be, even if I start blowing things up to proove my point.
That's the sort of reasoning that is inherent in all colonialism. Reasoning that way, you can say that it was right to displace morst of the native populations of Australia or the Americas because they "didn't have a country"
Point is that after WWII large numbers of jews were transplanted to a British colony, much like millions of Chinese were transplanted to occupied Tibet. If this didn't happen, Palestine would have gone the way of the other British colonies and would eventually have become an independent state. As it is, it has gone the way of South Africa.
To conclude, the fundamentalists didn't start the trouble, they just took advantage of the anger and fear of a population who had been treated for more that thirty years as sub-human.
If you aren't in Canada, laugh at them. What else do you expect from a counyty where a pizza can get to your house faster than an ambulance, there is handicap parking places in front of a skating rink, and people leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put useless junk in the garage?
You are clearly an idiot.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
>> And have you finally gotten around to stopping beating your wife?
RMS beats his wife?!?
Stop Press, we have exciting gossip! Or have I just wilfully misinterpreted the comment in a shameless fashion?
1729 = 9^3 + 10^3 = 1^3 + 12^3
I thought that was kind of sad really. I've read about people with Aspergers Syndrome who get into trouble like this. Their lives must really suck.
Whereas the rest of us understand the unwritten rule that when a security screener at an airport recommends you remove your shoes, it's a very different use of the word recommend than "I recommend you see this movie."
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
But apparently it's ok, because he has no interest in Harry Potter. Maybe other people will start to use that argument as to why they don't listen to him.
What a goddamn muppet.
(And before you get all "but no HP fans would go to stallman.org" on me, the blog entry is entitled Don't Buy Harry Potter Books - so if they're all such rock hard geeks would never even think of buying HP books, wtf is the point of this entry?)
from stallman's site I find this sentence, which I'm sure many will find interesting:
"I was anonymously informed that Snape kills Dumbledore around page 600 of this book, and that Snape is the "half-blood prince". (I am not sure what that means.)"
One of the big differences I see there is that the pictures and movies on that site may have been legally distributed, name and face intact. I'll admit to being gorribly naive as to how porn sites work, but my feeling would be that by paying your $5 to access the site, you're also receiving the right to save pictures and movies for personal use. While I sincerely doubt that would give me the right to mirror the entire site, I'd think I would be able "quote" the pictures in context. Of course, one can say this of just about anything on the Internet. The beerandporn guy could find himself quoted or cited on any number of sites on the Internet. They're not mirroring his content, just saying "Charles Johnson made an endorsement for 'Hot Horsemeat and Horseradish', stating that it twiddled his bits quite satisfactorily. Personally, I thought that the pictures with the penguin looked fake." Heck, they could have direct quotes as long as they're attributed and don't constitute more than some percentage of their work, right?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Is it just me, or does this sound like it could be the next Godwin's law? Or does stating that violate the usual addendum that intentionally invoking it doesn't count?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Quite honestly, I don't remember the Catholic Church going after Harry Potter. It's generally been the fundamentalists, Baptists in particular. Catholicism is a very old institution, thouands of years old, and they've learned (the hard way generally) not to over-react to pop culture like Harry Potter.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I'm not saying people with embarrasing stuff in thier backgrounds cannot be elected - like you said Marion Barry or Bush's previous drinking issues.
However I'd wager that in the Great Flame Wars that were the height of usenet, a lot of people said a LOT of things that would be particularily embarrasing in terms of being a politician. Having a bit of a mixed past can be looked at as sowing your oats, something you put behind you. But expressed ideology is something harder to escape and less likley something you have changed that much over time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For the purposes of this discussion, to me broadcasting and publishing are really the same in effect - public distribution of material, that should not be recallable once distributed (yes even Harry Potter books).
I agree that "publishing" was not really the right term to use though. Basically just providing material that any member of the public can obtain - that kind of thing is what I'm speaking of.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Property rights, like all rights, are yours (in essence) because you are a human being.
Oh? Try telling that to the next homeless guy you see on the street.
Airlines rent space at airports, and if they don't want you there because your a belligerent ass, then they have the right to call the cops to kick you out.
Not true... the airports belong to the city or government that provides them to the airlines. The airlines do not run the show unless they are aware of a security threat involving their planes or facilities. And even then, the federal security is responsible for assessing the threat level.
You must understand that airlines are heavily regulated by FAA and other government agencies. The airlines are not typical retailers and unlike retailers, they do NOT have the right to refuse service to just anyone. There are offices such as the FAA Office of Civil Rights etc which define relevany policy.
As far as free speech goes, if you RTFA, i.e his full recount of the scenario, you would realize that the agent did mislead RMS, and it is reasonable for him to feel misled. If there were a policy to detain those who did not send their shoes through the machine, they should tell him. If there were a "mandatory penalty" for not following the guard's "recommendation" then it really is not a recommendation, is it? Neither he nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, should have to experience such an absurd policy. I am sure you'll agree, airport security is and always has been a complete disaster.
On a similar note, unless he was unruly or inciting a riot or causing a disturbance (no, simply causing people to notice him does not count) it will be difficult for the airport security to claim his behavior was a security threat.
Nobody had to listen to what he was saying, but it was obvious that they did not want him to be heard by anyone. They should not have the right to take away his ability to peacefully speak -- this is important in all aspects of our life, particularly in areas such as aviation where the government rules with a heavy hand -- however nobody has to listen to him.
And you don't have to like him either. But just because you don't, you shouldn't be so narrowminded as to deny his (i.e. your) right to speak out against the government. Why would you give that up -- it is practically the *only* mechanism you have to influence policy!
Where I live they must ask you to leave first. The police won't come otherwise. We had a problem with some tough high school kids hanging out in a resteraunt where I worked while this tiny girl was the manager on duty. Their looks were scaring customers away (they were likely harmless, but they looked like they would have no problem killing you), and she didn't want to be out there essentially alone with those kids, and the police would not come until she had asked them to leave.
Of course nothing is to stop the manager from saying they asked you to leave without doing it. It would be a crime on his/her part though.
The above applies to Buffalo, MN, USA (as of 10 years ago). Laws vary from area to area, so I can't comment on what happened to you. It would be worth checking out for future reference though.
Yeah, after all Star Wars doesn't involve that kind premise... er, never mind.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
God that is stupid.
What about a family with a two children, one handicapped, and one who plays hockey? Or a coach with a bad back?
Life isn't as simple as you think it is. The point of handicapped accessible legislation is that it makes it possible for handicapped people - and their families to live lives that are as normal as possible.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
Small off-topic aside: there are hundreds of Canadian beers. You owe it to yourself to try something better than than Labatt's Blue. Likewise, Fosters is Australia's most well known beer brand, but also one of the worst.
"You've got the format of a 'if you denounce A without denouncing B, you must support B' down to a science. I hope you're proud of your achievement. But where is your post denouncing the drowning of kittens? And have you finally gotten around to stopping beating your wife?"
You are oversimplifying. In this case A and B are clearly corellated, and RMS has chosen to denounce B without even a mention of A. I don't need your smug attitude either asshole, since your logic skills need more work than mine.
Vote for Pedro
I think you made a typo, that should read:
mad prophet in the basement
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Somebody put this crazy dog to sleep.