You make a good point. I didn't consider it fully enough, it seems. While I don't doubt that shouting that in a fundamentalist church can be reasonably expected to cause violence, the phrase itself is definitely not a call to commit a violent act; rather it is someone expressing themselves (albeit in a rather unusual manner).
Regardless of the circumstances, if the people then attack you they are committing a crime. Ironically, the government would never prosecute someone in that situation, even if their statement fulfilled the Brandenburg v. Ohio test. They would probably instead offer you immunity in return for being the star witness:-)
IANAL and I know for sure that there is no exception in the 3rd Amendment for times of war. The 3rd Amendment says this:
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
As for military paraphernalia vs. soldiers, that would be an interesting argument to see played out in court, because there exist arguments on both sides (not that I agree with both sides, but I accept that such arguments exist).
I agree that successful litigation against the military would be next to impossible, especially considering the makeup of the current Supreme Court. On the other hand, a skilled lawyer just might be able to convince the Supreme Court that the military pressed this on people without their informed consent.
IANAL, but the Supreme Court made it clear what the boundaries of free speech are in Brandenburg v. Ohio: speech is protected unless it articulates a direct incitement to violent action and is also likely to produce that action.
Shouting "Jesus loves gays" in a fundamentalist church is definitely a direct incitement to violence and is also highly likely to produce violence. So shouting that in a fundamentalist church is most likely not protected under the 1st Amendment.
I would say that you have an excellent point. It is most unfortunate that in our nation instant gratification and an attitude of throwing money around is prevalent. I guess I didn't figure that into my estimation. What I was pointing out was that the high-school graduate who starts out at $10/hour as a cashier will be outdistanced by the college-graduate programmer earning $60,000+ a year (unless he/she gets a job at EA).
What I should have said was that the high-school graduate will be outdone by the college graduate after several years, providing that both are fiscally responsible (and that's a BIG if, especially considering the very laidback, "it's not my problem" culture in campuses today).
I very much value a university education, but it has nothing to do with making more money.
While I would dearly love to agree with your sentiments, that statement is very wrong. Unfortunately, most jobs these days won't even consider you seriously if you don't have either a university education or technical experience. And even for those that do, there is a significant pay difference between those who have a degree versus those who do not.
It would be great if what you said is true. That way people who really don't belong in college and who would prefer not to go wouldn't be practically forced to. The reality, however, is that there is a very large pay difference (probably $20-25K/year) between people with degrees versus those who have just a high school diploma (see http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center/education-value.html)
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war.
Some evidence would be nice, especially for the entirely unfounded accusations that the CIA and NSA are hiring Al Qaeda.
Oh, and while we're at it, I am amused to find that you are incapable of employing the truth; you seem to think that Barack Obama voted for the war and the PATRIOT Act when he wasn't even in the Senate when those votes were taken! Also, even if this were the case (which it is not), Ron Paul would be about as unlikely to clear it up as you claim Hillary would be.
Most of the time I'm pretty laid back about political philosophies because I understand that people are different, but when I find someone as ignorant as you, it makes me angry.
yeah, you need Java Did you read the quote you pasted in carefully?
The minimum JDK/JRE version required to use OpenOffice.org features that require java is JDK/JRE version 1.3.1. ...
For full functionality, jdk/jre 1.4.0_02 or newer or jdk/jre 1.4.1_01 or newer is required Certain features you might or might not want require Java but it is fully possible to install (compile) and run the rest of the office suite without Java. I'm sure because I compiled it just a few months ago without Java on my system (although at this point I have installed Java).
The RIAA continues to protect the quality of music by protecting the intellectual property (copyrights) of the companies they represent.
You are right in one sense--the RIAA is attempting to protect intellectual property rights, but not the IP of any company rather that of artists. However, the means which the RIAA uses to "defend" those rights far outstrips any good cause. The RIAA has filed many suits in cases where it was obvious from the outset that the defendant did not infringe on any copyrights (such as suing elderly people who didn't have Internet access).
The means which the RIAA employ do not fit the ends which they strive to achieve. A massive FUD campaign--for that is what the RIAA's tactics amount to--in the courts, practically blackmailing people into settling with them as in SLAPP suits.... those are dishonorable tactics.
....and the RIAA wonders why it continues to lose sales revenue. No better way to than suing your customers.
Back several years ago I switched to Linux because I was getting over 10 Blue Screens of Death from XP.... is this maybe a reflection of that level of quality (or lack thereof) translating from M$ software to hardware, considering M$ has really not built quality software products?
Exactly. The country transitioned to market capitalism in the early 20th century away from pure capitalism because the pure version allowed big business moguls to amass huge trusts and keep everyone else poor and dependent on them for jobs, etc.
Politicians (and the telecomm lobbyists who pay their bills) like to bloviate about the "free market"; can someone please point out what they're talking about?
What they're saying is that IF there is a problem (which they don't see but is obvious), a free market can sort it out because one company which is charging too much or having too many problems, etc. will be demolished by the competition. Basically, they're going back to the original captialist philosophy of Adam Smith and his "invisible hand" which guides the economy--namely supply and demand. The same theory which the U.S. abandoned about 100 years ago because it didn't work in an industrialized economy (remember all the trusts).
However, having said that, I will also say that what they ignore is that the market is not free: many telcos have either government-given or self-induced monopolies in specific areas. Further, high entry costs make it practically impossible for homegrown competition to displace them when their service goes down the drain. And also, I suspect that there may be collusion to set prices (not that I have evidence, just a hunch). Plus, as another poster here mentioned, in his town, there is Comcast and the phone company. And no one else. Where I live there is hardly much more variety.
Why anyone bothers to read that piece-of-trash site is far beyond me... For the same reason that anyone bothers to listen to a telco rep A.K.A Bush administration commerce official shouting his head off about net neutrality...:-)
Hotmail already offers 2GB. ....and also requires you to have some bullshit Windows Live ID stuff. I lost huge amounts of valuable information using Hotmail (mailing lists and addresses) when they switched over suddenly. Since I didn't want to sell my soul to Microsoft to regain the data I had lost, I had to start over again. It sucked.
this is a separate endeavor meant entirely for file storage. I have learned that Microsoft almost always has a financial motive or incentive behind its actions. Even the donations which it makes, as these are tax-deductible and also improve M$'s standing in the public eye and on the political scene. Here, it is clear that Microsoft wishes to make even more people dependent on them (and their servers) instead of Google and GMail. The same idea as with Hotmail, to corner the webmail market. It's old wine in new bottles.
And this is one step closer (after the Patriot Act and illegal domestic wiretapping and so on) to the world seen in 1984, if employers begin to force their employees to implant RFIDs.
Also, some other scary questions to throw out there: What if employers started to require different RFID chips, forcing employees to get cut open multiple times? What happens when the RFID breaks? What happens when the government demands access to the RFID chips to track them (as the corporations probably be doing by then)?
My point is that I, like Gould, I agree that RFID has its uses, even for employee identification (like on a badge for example) but when carried too far it is outright dangerous.
I think you are absolutely right here. Businesses in the DVD industry are taking things WAY too far. It's one thing to use DRM, which is hated by most everyone. But it's entirely a new thing to attempt to sabotage our rights under copyright law.
I'm hoping that the DVD CCA gets their penny-pinching a** kicked in court for their rampant materialism and total disregard for the law.
Well, the DRMing isn't the most noticeable feature in the OS, but here's a general overview of the issues. It stretches further than plain DRMing, to be sure, but I'll highlight the DRM problems. First of all, if you're not using the appropriate hardware which obfuscates signals to (the monitor and speakers for example), you get horribly downgraded quality of playback for music and videos (images are also affected by this if they aren't created on your system I think). Next, huge new protections were put in place to make sure you can't just "copy and paste" files, especially multimedia.
Of course, if your music files aren't DRMed this isn't really a problem. But most of the new CDs and DVDs which come out are DRMed and this is why such protection made by Microsoft in line with Hollywood and the MAFIAA annoys me.
It's an improvement in hundreds of tiny little ways. In a whole bunch of tiny little ways but not in any major ways? While I respect your opinion that Vista may be an improvement in some (or many) small ways, I still believe that the minor improvements are not worth the $$$$ price tag. Also, the heavy DRMing and MAFIAA compliance annoys me terribly.
encouraged spying on all the individuals by individuals Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi, the Stasi was also a secret police force. Also, even if the Stasi were not, the DHS dos not encourage Americans to spy on each other. Instead, it is involved in other shady operations, such as illegal, warrantless wiretapping, and so on.
And some people in America wonder why so many people in other countries don't like America. Get a clue. You think treating people from other countries like shit doesn't affect Americans. There are many other countries as free as America... and now-a-days, certainly many are more free. And what makes you think that so many Americans are clueless as the the worldwide resentment which has built up against them because of the actions of a certain executive in the White House? Why else is Mr. Bush's approval rating hovering around 30%? And while I would argue that there are really not any other nations more free than America (at least for citizens), I would certainly agree that the American government is acting very hypocritically on the subject of freedom, especially (as seen in TFA) towards foreign visitors.
Why not practice some of that Christian philosophy that President Wanker professes to espouse: do onto other as you would have them do unto you. The practice of screw everyone for the money sure hasn't worked for your safety has it? And may I ask, how many people in America practice "screw everyone for the money?" If you answer only the top corporate executives and maybe a few politicians accepting bribes, then you would be right. And there aren't many of those. Unfortunately, they have a disproportionate amount of influence in this nation, but they form a very small minority nonetheless.
And if you are going to say how safe the country has been with the new stasi... I will be blunt here, for I feel very strongly on this point. There is no secret police in America. The closest that we have come is with a bunch of telcoms either too chicken or too stupid to not comply with the FBI/CIA's illegal requests. However, there is no secret police in the United States.
there were more Americans killed by American terrorists against Americans (Oklahoma City) than by foreign terrorists in the ten years before 9/11. Meanwhile there have been more than 3000 killed since. And those were killed by the actions of another American: the president. Very true. I don't deny it and no one else does. However, what you missed is that 9/11--which killed more than Oklahoma City, Pearl Harbor, and Iraq (to date) combined--was the trigger for Bush's fanatical delusions (which in turn led to the 3000+ soldiers dying in Iraq).
There are several reasonable attitudes to take on America's actions--from supporting it wholeheartedly to severely doubting it--but to entirely disparage the nation and denounce it for several entirely different, scattered reasons with little outside evidence is a little too much. However, having said that, I will also say that I am totally disgusted by the Bush administration and its policies and ideas, which I believe have severely damaged the United States, most notably in the field of foreign policy.
I think that you are probably right the the EU can manufacture a bare minimum of necessities unlike the United States. Also about the fact that the United States owes a tremendous amount, something the current administration seems to ignore.
As for the value of the USD, while yes, it is decreasing, it is not such a large problem as the GGP suggested. The USD is not plunging downwards.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a good point. I didn't consider it fully enough, it seems. While I don't doubt that shouting that in a fundamentalist church can be reasonably expected to cause violence, the phrase itself is definitely not a call to commit a violent act; rather it is someone expressing themselves (albeit in a rather unusual manner).
Regardless of the circumstances, if the people then attack you they are committing a crime. Ironically, the government would never prosecute someone in that situation, even if their statement fulfilled the Brandenburg v. Ohio test. They would probably instead offer you immunity in return for being the star witness :-)
IANAL and I know for sure that there is no exception in the 3rd Amendment for times of war. The 3rd Amendment says this:
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.As for military paraphernalia vs. soldiers, that would be an interesting argument to see played out in court, because there exist arguments on both sides (not that I agree with both sides, but I accept that such arguments exist).
I agree that successful litigation against the military would be next to impossible, especially considering the makeup of the current Supreme Court. On the other hand, a skilled lawyer just might be able to convince the Supreme Court that the military pressed this on people without their informed consent.
IANAL, but the Supreme Court made it clear what the boundaries of free speech are in Brandenburg v. Ohio: speech is protected unless it articulates a direct incitement to violent action and is also likely to produce that action.
Shouting "Jesus loves gays" in a fundamentalist church is definitely a direct incitement to violence and is also highly likely to produce violence. So shouting that in a fundamentalist church is most likely not protected under the 1st Amendment.
I would say that you have an excellent point. It is most unfortunate that in our nation instant gratification and an attitude of throwing money around is prevalent. I guess I didn't figure that into my estimation. What I was pointing out was that the high-school graduate who starts out at $10/hour as a cashier will be outdistanced by the college-graduate programmer earning $60,000+ a year (unless he/she gets a job at EA).
What I should have said was that the high-school graduate will be outdone by the college graduate after several years, providing that both are fiscally responsible (and that's a BIG if, especially considering the very laidback, "it's not my problem" culture in campuses today).
While I would dearly love to agree with your sentiments, that statement is very wrong. Unfortunately, most jobs these days won't even consider you seriously if you don't have either a university education or technical experience. And even for those that do, there is a significant pay difference between those who have a degree versus those who do not.
It would be great if what you said is true. That way people who really don't belong in college and who would prefer not to go wouldn't be practically forced to. The reality, however, is that there is a very large pay difference (probably $20-25K/year) between people with degrees versus those who have just a high school diploma (see http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center/education-value.html)
Some evidence would be nice, especially for the entirely unfounded accusations that the CIA and NSA are hiring Al Qaeda.
Oh, and while we're at it, I am amused to find that you are incapable of employing the truth; you seem to think that Barack Obama voted for the war and the PATRIOT Act when he wasn't even in the Senate when those votes were taken! Also, even if this were the case (which it is not), Ron Paul would be about as unlikely to clear it up as you claim Hillary would be.
Most of the time I'm pretty laid back about political philosophies because I understand that people are different, but when I find someone as ignorant as you, it makes me angry.
...
For full functionality, jdk/jre 1.4.0_02 or newer or jdk/jre 1.4.1_01 or newer is required Certain features you might or might not want require Java but it is fully possible to install (compile) and run the rest of the office suite without Java. I'm sure because I compiled it just a few months ago without Java on my system (although at this point I have installed Java).
Just think how many workers start work at 6 AM.
You are right in one sense--the RIAA is attempting to protect intellectual property rights, but not the IP of any company rather that of artists. However, the means which the RIAA uses to "defend" those rights far outstrips any good cause. The RIAA has filed many suits in cases where it was obvious from the outset that the defendant did not infringe on any copyrights (such as suing elderly people who didn't have Internet access).
The means which the RIAA employ do not fit the ends which they strive to achieve. A massive FUD campaign--for that is what the RIAA's tactics amount to--in the courts, practically blackmailing people into settling with them as in SLAPP suits.... those are dishonorable tactics.
....and the RIAA wonders why it continues to lose sales revenue. No better way to than suing your customers.
There should be a fund to help people sued by the RIAA fight back instead of paying extortion money.
Back several years ago I switched to Linux because I was getting over 10 Blue Screens of Death from XP.... is this maybe a reflection of that level of quality (or lack thereof) translating from M$ software to hardware, considering M$ has really not built quality software products?
Exactly. The country transitioned to market capitalism in the early 20th century away from pure capitalism because the pure version allowed big business moguls to amass huge trusts and keep everyone else poor and dependent on them for jobs, etc.
What they're saying is that IF there is a problem (which they don't see but is obvious), a free market can sort it out because one company which is charging too much or having too many problems, etc. will be demolished by the competition. Basically, they're going back to the original captialist philosophy of Adam Smith and his "invisible hand" which guides the economy--namely supply and demand. The same theory which the U.S. abandoned about 100 years ago because it didn't work in an industrialized economy (remember all the trusts).
However, having said that, I will also say that what they ignore is that the market is not free: many telcos have either government-given or self-induced monopolies in specific areas. Further, high entry costs make it practically impossible for homegrown competition to displace them when their service goes down the drain. And also, I suspect that there may be collusion to set prices (not that I have evidence, just a hunch). Plus, as another poster here mentioned, in his town, there is Comcast and the phone company. And no one else. Where I live there is hardly much more variety.
And this is one step closer (after the Patriot Act and illegal domestic wiretapping and so on) to the world seen in 1984, if employers begin to force their employees to implant RFIDs.
Also, some other scary questions to throw out there: What if employers started to require different RFID chips, forcing employees to get cut open multiple times? What happens when the RFID breaks? What happens when the government demands access to the RFID chips to track them (as the corporations probably be doing by then)?
My point is that I, like Gould, I agree that RFID has its uses, even for employee identification (like on a badge for example) but when carried too far it is outright dangerous.
What's the betting they'll sue for some arcane reason? :-)
I think you are absolutely right here. Businesses in the DVD industry are taking things WAY too far. It's one thing to use DRM, which is hated by most everyone. But it's entirely a new thing to attempt to sabotage our rights under copyright law.
I'm hoping that the DVD CCA gets their penny-pinching a** kicked in court for their rampant materialism and total disregard for the law.
Well, the DRMing isn't the most noticeable feature in the OS, but here's a general overview of the issues. It stretches further than plain DRMing, to be sure, but I'll highlight the DRM problems. First of all, if you're not using the appropriate hardware which obfuscates signals to (the monitor and speakers for example), you get horribly downgraded quality of playback for music and videos (images are also affected by this if they aren't created on your system I think). Next, huge new protections were put in place to make sure you can't just "copy and paste" files, especially multimedia.
Of course, if your music files aren't DRMed this isn't really a problem. But most of the new CDs and DVDs which come out are DRMed and this is why such protection made by Microsoft in line with Hollywood and the MAFIAA annoys me.
Oops! Sorry, you're right!
I accidentally added 300 not 3000 for the soldiers killed in Iraq. Thank you for pointing that out!
There are several reasonable attitudes to take on America's actions--from supporting it wholeheartedly to severely doubting it--but to entirely disparage the nation and denounce it for several entirely different, scattered reasons with little outside evidence is a little too much. However, having said that, I will also say that I am totally disgusted by the Bush administration and its policies and ideas, which I believe have severely damaged the United States, most notably in the field of foreign policy.
Wait a second, but didn't Microsoft buy evil from the devil? So wouldn't being evil be a civil offense or something like that?
I think that you are probably right the the EU can manufacture a bare minimum of necessities unlike the United States. Also about the fact that the United States owes a tremendous amount, something the current administration seems to ignore.
As for the value of the USD, while yes, it is decreasing, it is not such a large problem as the GGP suggested. The USD is not plunging downwards.