While I admire the ACLU for taking on some contentious issues which are nasty, but have to be defended, most of their stuff seems to be things like forcing a nativity scene out of a city park or trying to make it possible for someone to mask their face in a driver's license photo.
No.. most of their stuff does not. Just most of the stuff that jokers like O'Reilly and Limbaugh like to focus on.
Almost all of their cases are about protecting the civil rights of the individual against the "man". You don't hear about most of those, because Fox News won't highlight them.
And also strangely, those that don't want to trust the government with health care, are more than willing to trust the government to carry out capital punishment.
I fully expect a lot of comments to come down on the side of the FBI and of more survellience and restriction on our liberties for the simple reason that the "evil" ACLU is on the other side.
Hell, I'd like to be able to install most 3rd party applications without a reboot.
Someone explain to me why I need to reboot my PC just because I installed an audio file editor....
Seriously... this is a big reason Windows hasn't been a player in large compute clusters. Rebooting nodes in a 1000-node cluster that is running MPI jobs that span half the nodes, just because there's a patch for ftp or something, is not acceptable in a 24/7 "supercomputer" environment.
Maybe in some bands. But in others, the drummer is more than significant.
Think Rush, and Neil Peart. He write 99% of the lyrics and is generally regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest (and most skilled) drummers in Rock history.
Geez.. I'm so tired of "this was on Digg first". Then go read f***ing Digg.
Digg has 1/10 the audience that Slashdot has, and the comments there all seem to be written by 16-yr-olds.
If Slashdot doesn't get the story first, I don't care. The user base that provides the comments is the real value of Slashdot.
If you want it first, by all means go somewhere else. But quit bitching about Slashdot's business model already. It isn't going to change, and it doesn't matter to 99% of us that someone else had the story first. The very nature of Slashdot is that EVERY story is somewhere else first.
If this ever makes it's way into wider use, you can expect the shit to hit the fan. Not only are kids/teens going to avoid the store, they will continue to do so for the rest of their lives, and the store will go out of business
As a former teenager myself who used to "hate the man", and now in my late 30s, I can tell you that the exact OPPOSITE will occur.
Once the "transformation" occurs... after college, marriage, kids... these former troublesome teens will turn around and FREQUENT the very same establishments that they loathed as teenagers. Why? Because they will become the group that whines about the "kids today".
Trust me... you'll find out. I used to wear T-shirts saying "if it's too loud, you're too old" and "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" when I was 17. As a 38 year old with pre-teen daughters now, my perspective has changed.
I used to think, when I was a teen, that my father was the dumbest S.O.B. in the world.
It is amazing how every year since, his I.Q. has gone up.
Teens have rights too, you can't discriminate on the basis of age.
How the above assinine comment got modded up so high is beyond me.
In the U.S., we legally discriminate on the basis of age all the time:
You can't drive until you're 16 in most states.
You can't enter a bar/nightclub that serves alcohol until you're 21.
You can't vote until you're 18.
You can't watch a movie rated "R" legally, without a parent or guardian, until you're 17.
Those over 65 get discounted pricing in many restaurants.
Kids under 5 eat free in many restaurants.
You can't play little league if you're under 9 years old or over 12.
You can't marry, in most states, until you're of a defined legal age.
The list could go on forever.
Businesses and governments discriminate on the basis of age all the time.
People, please don't mod up comments that lack all logic and common sense. Age discrimination is one of the last forms of legal discrimination available to businesses and governments in this country.
I'm "addicted" to Second Life. I get on at 10pm every night and quit at 1am to go to bed. My wife goes to bed at 9pm, since she works earlier than me, so this has no impact on our social life together. The kids are in bed by 9:30pm.
So basically... I am "getting my fix" during the time when most men my age would be watching Sportcenter, or HBO. While the rest of the house is asleep.
While it certainly meets the technical meaning of "addiction"... I NEED my fix every night.... It is not the same as drug addiction. It is costing me $9.95 a month, and it harms no one.
1. We make software that allows you to keep an eye on your children while they are on the internet.
And allows stalkers to spy on unsuspecting prey. And allows abusive spouses to spy on their spouse. And allows nosy neighbors to spy on others in the neighborhood. Your product is reprehensible, and a violation of all of the basic tenets of a free society.
2. Some anti-virus software blacklisted our software.
Which is their right. Bravo for them.
3. We state that they are not allowed to download our software in an attempt to stop them blacklisting us
There is no legal precedent for you to be able to "state" how someone, who obtained your product legally, may use it. The RIAA cannot prevent me from using a Brittany Spears CD as a coaster, as long as I purchased it legally.
This instance is where you're wrong. You can "state that they are not allowed" all you want, but you don't have a legal foot to stand on. Once they obtain it legally, they can do whatever they want with it - as long as they don't sell it or violate your patent.
4. They carry on doing so, ignoring our warning they they are expressly forbidden from downloading our software - it is our copyright.
Your warning has no basis or ability to be enforced by law. You're simply wrong. If you make it available for download, you cannot restrict who may download it without being guilty of discrimination.
5. They ignore our attempts to contact them
They have no legal obligation to talk to you.
6. So we consider going to the police to stop them downloading our program without permission.
If you make your product publically available for download to some people "without permission", then you cannot restrict the download from other people without being guilty of discrimination. In any case, you can't even prove that they downloaded it. It might have been given to them by a 3rd party. In which case, the 3rd party didn't "violate" you agreement since they didn't blacklist you, and the anti-spyware didn't violate it since they didn't actually download it. You're screwed.
7. We get flamed by a load of people who don't seem to understand the situation!
We understand the situation perfectly. You created a product that allows people to spy on other people without their knowledge (probably in violation of several other laws). You make this product publically available to anyone with an internet connection. You attempt to restrict the usage of the product AFTER it was obtained legally from your publically available web site. You only restrict the usage to those who download it for one particular purpose, but not others... engaging discrimination in the process.
Why are we sleazy?
Because you make a reprehensible product, make it publically available, and then get upset when people who obtained it decide to give other people the ability to render your reprehensible product useless.
The same reason that I'm forced to support a war started by a President that I didn't vote for.
If I have to pay toward the billions of dollars that are going to an ill-conceived war that I was against then you can pay some $$ to help your fellow citizens recover from a natural disaster.
We're all forced to reward someone else's stupidity. My taxes are funding such stupidity in Iraq right now.
Slashdot Mirror
But sadly, I find myself in the distinct minority.
It's a tired old canard, but the terrorists really have won. America has changed because of 9/11. For the worse.
We're becoming what we used to despise and fight against during the cold war... a totalitarian police state.
No.. most of their stuff does not. Just most of the stuff that jokers like O'Reilly and Limbaugh like to focus on.
Almost all of their cases are about protecting the civil rights of the individual against the "man". You don't hear about most of those, because Fox News won't highlight them.
And also strangely, those that don't want to trust the government with health care, are more than willing to trust the government to carry out capital punishment.
Nevermind them. Yay ACLU. Keep up the good work.
Linux actually works... and works well.
Someone explain to me why I need to reboot my PC just because I installed an audio file editor....
Seriously... this is a big reason Windows hasn't been a player in large compute clusters. Rebooting nodes in a 1000-node cluster that is running MPI jobs that span half the nodes, just because there's a patch for ftp or something, is not acceptable in a 24/7 "supercomputer" environment.
I've had the ability to kill services (daemons), upgrade them, and restart them without rebooting the system for years.
yet another Microsoft "innovation" that is decades behind the competition.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
Think Rush, and Neil Peart. He write 99% of the lyrics and is generally regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest (and most skilled) drummers in Rock history.
Geez.. I'm so tired of "this was on Digg first". Then go read f***ing Digg.
Digg has 1/10 the audience that Slashdot has, and the comments there all seem to be written by 16-yr-olds.
If Slashdot doesn't get the story first, I don't care. The user base that provides the comments is the real value of Slashdot.
If you want it first, by all means go somewhere else. But quit bitching about Slashdot's business model already. It isn't going to change, and it doesn't matter to 99% of us that someone else had the story first. The very nature of Slashdot is that EVERY story is somewhere else first.
Who gives a flying f***?
How bad would it suck to reject your own face?
As a former teenager myself who used to "hate the man", and now in my late 30s, I can tell you that the exact OPPOSITE will occur.
Once the "transformation" occurs... after college, marriage, kids... these former troublesome teens will turn around and FREQUENT the very same establishments that they loathed as teenagers. Why? Because they will become the group that whines about the "kids today".
Trust me... you'll find out. I used to wear T-shirts saying "if it's too loud, you're too old" and "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" when I was 17. As a 38 year old with pre-teen daughters now, my perspective has changed.
I used to think, when I was a teen, that my father was the dumbest S.O.B. in the world.
It is amazing how every year since, his I.Q. has gone up.
How the above assinine comment got modded up so high is beyond me.
In the U.S., we legally discriminate on the basis of age all the time:
The list could go on forever.
Businesses and governments discriminate on the basis of age all the time.
People, please don't mod up comments that lack all logic and common sense. Age discrimination is one of the last forms of legal discrimination available to businesses and governments in this country.
I'm pretty sure it is stupidity in his case.
You always have the nagging feeling that you're following someone.
If wife has headache, GOTO sleep
If boss is on vacation, GOTO strip bar for long lunch
If in-laws are coming over, GOTO work and pretend there is a critical problem that requires your presence all night
If technical conference is in Vegas, GOTO it
loads of examples.
If work is boring, GOTO slashdot to kill an hour or two
1.) I hate M$
and
2.) M$ sucks
Well... #1 is subjective, but #2 is definitely objective fact.
I'm "addicted" to Second Life. I get on at 10pm every night and quit at 1am to go to bed. My wife goes to bed at 9pm, since she works earlier than me, so this has no impact on our social life together. The kids are in bed by 9:30pm.
So basically... I am "getting my fix" during the time when most men my age would be watching Sportcenter, or HBO. While the rest of the house is asleep.
While it certainly meets the technical meaning of "addiction"... I NEED my fix every night.... It is not the same as drug addiction. It is costing me $9.95 a month, and it harms no one.
Pfooey to this "study".
And allows stalkers to spy on unsuspecting prey. And allows abusive spouses to spy on their spouse. And allows nosy neighbors to spy on others in the neighborhood. Your product is reprehensible, and a violation of all of the basic tenets of a free society.
2. Some anti-virus software blacklisted our software.
Which is their right. Bravo for them.
3. We state that they are not allowed to download our software in an attempt to stop them blacklisting us
There is no legal precedent for you to be able to "state" how someone, who obtained your product legally, may use it. The RIAA cannot prevent me from using a Brittany Spears CD as a coaster, as long as I purchased it legally.
This instance is where you're wrong. You can "state that they are not allowed" all you want, but you don't have a legal foot to stand on. Once they obtain it legally, they can do whatever they want with it - as long as they don't sell it or violate your patent.
4. They carry on doing so, ignoring our warning they they are expressly forbidden from downloading our software - it is our copyright.
Your warning has no basis or ability to be enforced by law. You're simply wrong. If you make it available for download, you cannot restrict who may download it without being guilty of discrimination.
5. They ignore our attempts to contact them
They have no legal obligation to talk to you.
6. So we consider going to the police to stop them downloading our program without permission.
If you make your product publically available for download to some people "without permission", then you cannot restrict the download from other people without being guilty of discrimination. In any case, you can't even prove that they downloaded it. It might have been given to them by a 3rd party. In which case, the 3rd party didn't "violate" you agreement since they didn't blacklist you, and the anti-spyware didn't violate it since they didn't actually download it. You're screwed.
7. We get flamed by a load of people who don't seem to understand the situation!
We understand the situation perfectly. You created a product that allows people to spy on other people without their knowledge (probably in violation of several other laws). You make this product publically available to anyone with an internet connection. You attempt to restrict the usage of the product AFTER it was obtained legally from your publically available web site. You only restrict the usage to those who download it for one particular purpose, but not others... engaging discrimination in the process.
Why are we sleazy?
Because you make a reprehensible product, make it publically available, and then get upset when people who obtained it decide to give other people the ability to render your reprehensible product useless.
Fuck you.
When Cain murdered Abel, the bible says he ran and hid because he was afraid of the "others".
What "others"? He murdered his only male sibling... supposedly, other than Adam, the only other male on earth at the time.
Doh!
My signature says it all..
Sure there is... why would you want that to happen to your best friend?
... and laughing his ass off in hell right next to Joseph Smith is L. Ron Hubbard.
If I have to pay toward the billions of dollars that are going to an ill-conceived war that I was against then you can pay some $$ to help your fellow citizens recover from a natural disaster.
We're all forced to reward someone else's stupidity. My taxes are funding such stupidity in Iraq right now.