The point isn't that the lady said bad things that drove a kid to suicide, or that the lady used the internet to do it. The lady should be subject to ordinary liability for that--just like any person who did the same thing on the street, or in the mail, or whatever. That's not the issue.
The issue is the terms of service agreement! That thing you click on and ignore so many times. That thing you send phony information so that the corporation doesn't get too personal on you!
If you type in phony information, (FRAUD, daddy), and then hurt somebody's feelings while on the account procured by fraud, the Federales can prosecute you for a crime. Think about the slippery slope this affords . . .
You gotta love the ingenuity of those federal prosecutors!
This post is not informative. It is idiotic.
A judge is not a lone ranger out in search of dispositive arguments. A judge JUDGES! The judge listens to the arguments of the lawyers and makes a decision.
I'll bet the defendant's lawyers sprung the argument on the judge at the last minute.
Only an idiot would attack a judge for this without carefully examining the record first.
Congress has always allowed a huge amount of discretion to the the executive branch when it comes to border security. The good reasons for this are obvious.
Nevertheless, Congress can always slam limits down on that discretion.
If "Homeland" security goes too far, and angers too many citizens, then Congress will change the rules of the game. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.
You very much need aerobic exercise to supplement your muscular-oriented exercise. Aerobic exercise works the heart, lungs, and circulatory system--very critical subsystems.
I'd recommend a treadmill or a bike with a trainer hooked up to it. Have a TV in front of you. After reading a couple books about it, use a heart rate monitor to keep from pushing too hard or too easy.
Try to build up to one hour per day. Don't discontinue your calisthenics. Read about exercise.
Your right to free speech in the US is not just to "free speech AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT." Consider New York Times v. Sullivan. In that case, and others succeeding it, the Supreme Court imposed a constitutional standard that protects those commenting in the public arena. Your statement is not just misleading, it is WRONG.
I can see where you made your mistake, though. The Constitution and the Amendments impose limitations upon governmental actions--that's it. In Sullivan, Gertz, etc., the Supreme Court was imposing a limitation upon the power of governments (in other words, no State law can make a person liable for defamation unless the plaintiff can overcome the constitutionally-imposed burden of proof ("actual malice").
This has the look and feel of a very good decision. Software patents, used in conjunction with trade secrets and copyright, are a wonderful way to create FUD. That FUD chills programmers too much because they don't want the litigation risk associated with FUD.
I hope the courts eventually figure out that software patents are troll food--and nothing else.
"I challenge anyone to invest so much in any project and then happily see it messed up by people who are less competent."
Come on, this is just silly. Lawyers invest untold hours of time in deals that blow up. Doctors perform near-miraculous surgeries on patients who immediately revert to the damaging behaviors that created the need for surgery in the first place. Teachers bang their heads against the wall trying to teach students who don't care a whit about learning . . .
Maybe the guy needs psychological help badly. If that's the case, I hope he gets it--even though the psychologist's work on him may all turn out to be in vain . ... If he's half-normal, though, he should start acting like a professional and not like a baby.
Corporate management and boards of directors comprise an overcompensated incestuous club that everybody wants to join. There won't be any change--politicians want to be in on the club too.
Fat brain-damaged companies can be beaten by leaner companies, but as soon as prosperity pokes its head into the lean company's corporate boardroom, most management hurries off to join the club. Who can blame them? They want to be rich, too!
The article points out that the crackers are available for free online. This is a triumph of the EVIL open source. Will the GOOD open source rise up and defeat it? Stay tuned for next week's episode.
The 9th Circuit could have decided the facts presented in this case (the close opinion is proof enough of that), but they didn't. So the poor injunction-seeker is denied his injunction because his legal claim is not ripe for adjudication.
Sooner or later, some dirtbag is going to be charged with a crime and evidence is going to be collected via the challenged Act. The dirtbag will file a motion to suppress, and an appeal will eventually result from that (with the dirtbag's liberty hanging in the balance).
Sooner or later there will be a ruling. Everybody'll just have to wait.
Without the "immoral beings," as you call there would never have been the remarkable, unprecedented, and ongoing captialistic explosion that brought computers to everybody's desktop and gave the GPL-Tribe the hardware/software tools and user-base they need to foment their rebellion.
The GPL-Tribe is good and useful, but it is not the ONLY good and useful tribe out there.
The GPL-Tribe cannot and will not ever satisfy everybody's software needs. But it can establish a discrete environment where its concepts of free code are inviolate. In other words, the GPL-Tribe can lock the capitalist bastards out of part of the software world, but it can't lock the capitalist bastards out of the whole software world. And the BSD-Tribe will be more than happy to help the GPL-Tribe with this!
Some products must be closed-source because the job will never get done by open-source developers. For example, no programmer is ever going to write financial services code for a Wall Street company for free. Likewise, some markets will never be adequately served by open source developers. Why are these "closed source distributors" immoral? The closed source developers are only serving a market that is ignored by the GPL-Tribe.
If the GPL-Tribe is not providing something (like good multimedia software) for free, why shouldn't the closed-source people provide it--for MONEY? If nobody else is going to do it for free, why not?
Your GOOD US vs. BAD THEM argument is unpersuasive. You would rather cripple your competitor rather than beat him in the marketplace--because your competitior is bad and you are good.
If closed source serves a need that open source fails to serve--that makes them good to me. Most programmers of the really difficult and important stuff do NOT do it for free. They do it for money. The world (including the GPL-Tribe) needs those closed source programmers (if only to aid in the bringing of electricity to their houses).
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know. Thanks. Your comment sure made me laugh!
Object-Oriented COBOL, Visual COBOL, JAVA-BOL, COBOL++ . . . Functional software subordinated to the elaborations of the programming class!
California! Prepare to warmly welcome your programming overlords!
Avoiding exercise will reduce your lifespan and will reduce the social and economic cost of maintaining an old nerd's life.
If you think that is a win-win situation, go for it! Er . . ., I mean don't go for it. Be sedentary!
The point isn't that the lady said bad things that drove a kid to suicide, or that the lady used the internet to do it. The lady should be subject to ordinary liability for that--just like any person who did the same thing on the street, or in the mail, or whatever. That's not the issue.
The issue is the terms of service agreement! That thing you click on and ignore so many times. That thing you send phony information so that the corporation doesn't get too personal on you!
If you type in phony information, (FRAUD, daddy), and then hurt somebody's feelings while on the account procured by fraud, the Federales can prosecute you for a crime. Think about the slippery slope this affords . . .
You gotta love the ingenuity of those federal prosecutors!
Yes . . . and nothing can stop the U.S. Air Force!
Ohmigosh! A nightmare of Orwellian proportions. Winston? Where are you? Are you okay?
The Templars had better watch out! No one expects THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
This post is not informative. It is idiotic. A judge is not a lone ranger out in search of dispositive arguments. A judge JUDGES! The judge listens to the arguments of the lawyers and makes a decision. I'll bet the defendant's lawyers sprung the argument on the judge at the last minute. Only an idiot would attack a judge for this without carefully examining the record first.
Not all doctors are created equal. Not all steroid regimens are equally effective for individual athletes.
Steroid-enabled contests would no longer be athlete vs. athlete, but rather athlete/doctor/pharmacy team vs. athlete/doctor/pharmacy team.
Now THAT is a slashdot post! UDAMAN!
Congress has always allowed a huge amount of discretion to the the executive branch when it comes to border security. The good reasons for this are obvious.
Nevertheless, Congress can always slam limits down on that discretion.
If "Homeland" security goes too far, and angers too many citizens, then Congress will change the rules of the game. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.
You should be modded up into the stratosphere for that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's why you have TWO cameras. That's what James Bond would have, anyway.
You very much need aerobic exercise to supplement your muscular-oriented exercise. Aerobic exercise works the heart, lungs, and circulatory system--very critical subsystems.
I'd recommend a treadmill or a bike with a trainer hooked up to it. Have a TV in front of you. After reading a couple books about it, use a heart rate monitor to keep from pushing too hard or too easy.
Try to build up to one hour per day. Don't discontinue your calisthenics. Read about exercise.
Only take on the king if you are going to kill the king.
Your right to free speech in the US is not just to "free speech AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT." Consider New York Times v. Sullivan. In that case, and others succeeding it, the Supreme Court imposed a constitutional standard that protects those commenting in the public arena. Your statement is not just misleading, it is WRONG.
I can see where you made your mistake, though. The Constitution and the Amendments impose limitations upon governmental actions--that's it. In Sullivan, Gertz, etc., the Supreme Court was imposing a limitation upon the power of governments (in other words, no State law can make a person liable for defamation unless the plaintiff can overcome the constitutionally-imposed burden of proof ("actual malice").
This has the look and feel of a very good decision. Software patents, used in conjunction with trade secrets and copyright, are a wonderful way to create FUD. That FUD chills programmers too much because they don't want the litigation risk associated with FUD.
I hope the courts eventually figure out that software patents are troll food--and nothing else.
"I challenge anyone to invest so much in any project and then happily see it messed up by people who are less competent."
Come on, this is just silly. Lawyers invest untold hours of time in deals that blow up. Doctors perform near-miraculous surgeries on patients who immediately revert to the damaging behaviors that created the need for surgery in the first place. Teachers bang their heads against the wall trying to teach students who don't care a whit about learning . . .
Maybe the guy needs psychological help badly. If that's the case, I hope he gets it--even though the psychologist's work on him may all turn out to be in vain . . .. If he's half-normal, though, he should start acting like a professional and not like a baby.
Corporate management and boards of directors comprise an overcompensated incestuous club that everybody wants to join. There won't be any change--politicians want to be in on the club too. Fat brain-damaged companies can be beaten by leaner companies, but as soon as prosperity pokes its head into the lean company's corporate boardroom, most management hurries off to join the club. Who can blame them? They want to be rich, too!
Imagine no possessions. It's easy if you try.
Hail to the Victors!
Beat OSU!
Your statement is true and mine is not entirely true.
The article points out that the crackers are available for free online. This is a triumph of the EVIL open source. Will the GOOD open source rise up and defeat it? Stay tuned for next week's episode.
The 9th Circuit could have decided the facts presented in this case (the close opinion is proof enough of that), but they didn't. So the poor injunction-seeker is denied his injunction because his legal claim is not ripe for adjudication.
Sooner or later, some dirtbag is going to be charged with a crime and evidence is going to be collected via the challenged Act. The dirtbag will file a motion to suppress, and an appeal will eventually result from that (with the dirtbag's liberty hanging in the balance).
Sooner or later there will be a ruling. Everybody'll just have to wait.
Without the "immoral beings," as you call there would never have been the remarkable, unprecedented, and ongoing captialistic explosion that brought computers to everybody's desktop and gave the GPL-Tribe the hardware/software tools and user-base they need to foment their rebellion.
The GPL-Tribe is good and useful, but it is not the ONLY good and useful tribe out there.
The GPL-Tribe cannot and will not ever satisfy everybody's software needs. But it can establish a discrete environment where its concepts of free code are inviolate. In other words, the GPL-Tribe can lock the capitalist bastards out of part of the software world, but it can't lock the capitalist bastards out of the whole software world. And the BSD-Tribe will be more than happy to help the GPL-Tribe with this!
Some products must be closed-source because the job will never get done by open-source developers. For example, no programmer is ever going to write financial services code for a Wall Street company for free. Likewise, some markets will never be adequately served by open source developers. Why are these "closed source distributors" immoral?
The closed source developers are only serving a market that is ignored by the GPL-Tribe.
If the GPL-Tribe is not providing something (like good multimedia software) for free, why shouldn't the closed-source people provide it--for MONEY? If nobody else is going to do it for free, why not?
Your GOOD US vs. BAD THEM argument is unpersuasive. You would rather cripple your competitor rather than beat him in the marketplace--because your competitior is bad and you are good.
If closed source serves a need that open source fails to serve--that makes them good to me. Most programmers of the really difficult and important stuff do NOT do it for free. They do it for money. The world (including the GPL-Tribe) needs those closed source programmers (if only to aid in the bringing of electricity to their houses).
Lighten up! The BSD people are cool.