Since when is "Free Speech" defined as "what you can publish with Front Page." Microsoft is not violating anyone's right to free speech; They're simply saying for what purpose their products can be used. Every corporation has the right to limit how useful their product is, if they so desire;
Oh? I disagree. In general, a corporation has no right to dictate how I use their product after I buy it. The software market is an anomaly in the business world, but when MS finally rolls out their subscription model, they'll have a good deal more leverage to make these kinds of demands, since the user will no longer own the software.
On the other hand, the fact that crypto is classified as "munitions" (this means that seemingly harmless stuff, such as the Mozilla source code or the DeCSS T-Shirts are actually classified as munitions! scary stuff!) means that actually, Congress probably *can* regulate it via export control. But since you have a Constitutional right to bear arms (heh), they can't regulate it's use by citizens.
Well.. not quite. There are plenty of cases where arms in the US are heavily regulated or banned. Handguns might be fine, but Ak-47s? Tanks? Bazookas? There are different grades or levels of munitions and they are all treated in different ways.
If physicists or doctors claimed that people would lose consciousness in a few seconds, then our scientific and medical communities have far greater problems to worry about then terrorist attacks. I doubt they have slipped that far.
I also have a hard time believing that our airplanes are so shittily put together that a bullet or two could rip one apart.
Wow. Amazing how both sides are supported by bin Laden now. "You're doing bin Laden's work because he wants us to be less secure!" "You're doing his work because he wants us to lose our freedom!" bin Laden is a popular guy.
The sick fact is, is that the US actually *trained* Bin Laden. God if I can remember the name of the war, but it was back in either late 80's or early 90's. (Not the gulf war..some other small foreign war going on.)
It was the USSR-Afghanistan war of the 80's. The US didn't like the Soviet Union, so it supported bin Laden in Afghanistan's fight against them. I'm not so sure he was really -trained- by the US, but he definitely received money and weapons from us.
Ummm, not really. He basically said the actions were the responsibility of the terrorists, but that the reason we are struck now is because of gays, lesbians, pagans, etc. He has not admitted to saying anything wrong.
(2) These rights are subject to limitations in the provisions of general statutes, in statutory provisions for the protection of the youth, and in the right to personal honor.
Please tell me exactly what can be banned under #2. Thanks.
Why are you assuming the CIA is the only agency that will be able to tap into communications? Quite frankly, if the CIA can, then others will be able to as well, such as "hackers."
Right, it's obvious that if we ban encryption, there's no way the terrorists could get it. After all, everyone knows those Arab fuckwits are far too stupid to develop their own software, or even to communicate in code, so that should be easy enough for us to ban. We'll have fewer liberties, but it should be obvious to all that we would be much much safer.
They fought with the only method they had. It's the only way for a very small group of people to cause such radical damage. If 30 people stepped off a boat in New York and ran through the street with knives, do you think they would have had near the amount of effect? Of course not. We like to call them "cowardly" because we want to assign every bad attribute we can to these people, even if it doesn't exactly fit. Terrorism isn't cowardice, it's simply the action they feel will have the greatest impact. If they die in the attempt, it could actually be called bravery. They have courage. You don't have to like it, but not every instance of courage is for a noble purpose.
Well also remember that 3 weeks ago, a representative of binLaden warned of an impending "unprecidented strike against US interests." Draw your own conclusions.
$500 Diablo 2 II USWest Pally Paladin +6 Ring +6! [ebay.com]
Unfortunately for the people who bought those items, they're going to lose them and the nice chunk of cash pretty soon. Those are 'illegal' or 'impossible' items -- items that merely exist because of a game bug. Some items are totally bizarre.. -50% fire resist, +200 magic find, +50 damage (only at night) etc. You can get some interesting affixes for features that Blizzard wanted to put in, but didn't because they ran out of time. Those affixes were never supposed to generate, but they did when some rare circumstances trigger a game bug. It won't be long until Blizzard does a sweep through of all items, eliminating any items that have 'impossible' affixes. Buyer beware: Don't bid on any dream items that shouldn't be able to drop normally in the game. You're likely to lose the item and the money you paid for it. If you're suspicious, you can look at the prefixes and suffixes on the Aurreat Summit.
How? The only ones who could put such items in the game are the developers/maintainers, and the parent knows this and would probably frown on such things.
Personally, I don't see purchasing legislation as a 1st amendment issue, as it means 99% of all americans have no "1st amendment rights" which can counter those of big money influence. To say the size of your bank account should give you more 1st amendment power is corrupt to the core at best.
But that is the state of the country and much of the world today. For example I don't have the $$$ to buy a Superbowl ad, or even any television ad, but IBM does. The first amendment gives you the right to express yourself, but it doesn't mean anyone else has to give you a high-profile method for it.
Which Napster never had. Occasionally they were speedy, but no way in hell were they accurate. A string search for musician and song title is not accurate.
* Comprehensive database of content
I'll certainly grant you that. That was pretty nice.
* Fast download
Which napster never had. Hell, even most of the DSL/Cable connections I tried to contact on Napster were non-responsive.
* Fair price -- and only pay for what you use
Another plus.
* Compatibility with customer's player of choice
This was pretty important. I've got the feeling so many "Digital music" initiatives are trying to lock me into a single platform/player/etc.
* Ease of use
This is important for almost anything to gain popularity.
In my school, the students hold these prayer sessions and maintain a school endorsed bible club. The catcher is that they have made it against school rules to wear anything that this christian town would view as sacrilage. For example, you can't wear all black, dragon shirts/jewelry, or pentagrams.
Amazing. At my Catholic high school we had the option of ordering class rings, which most of us decided to do. One side had the shield with the cross inscribed on it which was the school insignia, the other side could have one of a bunch of preselected designs. I opted for the image of a dragon on that side as did some others.. and no one had a problem with this. At a private Catholic school. And yet you wouldn't have been allowed to do this at your public school?
If you only have the 5% doing the ripping, then you have a very poor selection to choose from. Napster worked so nicely because there was a very wide selection of music.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh? I disagree. In general, a corporation has no right to dictate how I use their product after I buy it. The software market is an anomaly in the business world, but when MS finally rolls out their subscription model, they'll have a good deal more leverage to make these kinds of demands, since the user will no longer own the software.
On the other hand, the fact that crypto is classified as "munitions" (this means that seemingly harmless stuff, such as the Mozilla source code or the DeCSS T-Shirts are actually classified as munitions! scary stuff!) means that actually, Congress probably *can* regulate it via export control. But since you have a Constitutional right to bear arms (heh), they can't regulate it's use by citizens.
Well.. not quite. There are plenty of cases where arms in the US are heavily regulated or banned. Handguns might be fine, but Ak-47s? Tanks? Bazookas? There are different grades or levels of munitions and they are all treated in different ways.
I also have a hard time believing that our airplanes are so shittily put together that a bullet or two could rip one apart.
Wow. Amazing how both sides are supported by bin Laden now. "You're doing bin Laden's work because he wants us to be less secure!" "You're doing his work because he wants us to lose our freedom!" bin Laden is a popular guy.
It was the USSR-Afghanistan war of the 80's. The US didn't like the Soviet Union, so it supported bin Laden in Afghanistan's fight against them. I'm not so sure he was really -trained- by the US, but he definitely received money and weapons from us.
Ummm, not really. He basically said the actions were the responsibility of the terrorists, but that the reason we are struck now is because of gays, lesbians, pagans, etc. He has not admitted to saying anything wrong.
Please tell me exactly what can be banned under #2. Thanks.
Angry White Guy
That's called satire, for all you intellectually repugnant fucks
I took you for your word before the final line. There are far too many people I've talked to who believe exactly that.
Right, it's obvious that if we ban encryption, there's no way the terrorists could get it. After all, everyone knows those Arab fuckwits are far too stupid to develop their own software, or even to communicate in code, so that should be easy enough for us to ban. We'll have fewer liberties, but it should be obvious to all that we would be much much safer.
To the contrary, a dead terrorist creates many more terrorists. If you play the terrorist's game, you are caught in the endless cycle of revenge.
Unfortunately for the people who bought those items, they're going to lose them and the nice chunk of cash pretty soon. Those are 'illegal' or 'impossible' items -- items that merely exist because of a game bug. Some items are totally bizarre.. -50% fire resist, +200 magic find, +50 damage (only at night) etc. You can get some interesting affixes for features that Blizzard wanted to put in, but didn't because they ran out of time. Those affixes were never supposed to generate, but they did when some rare circumstances trigger a game bug. It won't be long until Blizzard does a sweep through of all items, eliminating any items that have 'impossible' affixes. Buyer beware: Don't bid on any dream items that shouldn't be able to drop normally in the game. You're likely to lose the item and the money you paid for it. If you're suspicious, you can look at the prefixes and suffixes on the Aurreat Summit.
Personally, I don't see purchasing legislation as a 1st amendment issue, as it means 99% of all americans have no "1st amendment rights" which can counter those of big money influence. To say the size of your bank account should give you more 1st amendment power is corrupt to the core at best.
But that is the state of the country and much of the world today. For example I don't have the $$$ to buy a Superbowl ad, or even any television ad, but IBM does. The first amendment gives you the right to express yourself, but it doesn't mean anyone else has to give you a high-profile method for it.
And it's not like Tower has the greatest selection either...
Here we go!
* Fast, accurate searching
Which Napster never had. Occasionally they were speedy, but no way in hell were they accurate. A string search for musician and song title is not accurate.
* Comprehensive database of content
I'll certainly grant you that. That was pretty nice.
* Fast download
Which napster never had. Hell, even most of the DSL/Cable connections I tried to contact on Napster were non-responsive.
* Fair price -- and only pay for what you use
Another plus.
* Compatibility with customer's player of choice
This was pretty important. I've got the feeling so many "Digital music" initiatives are trying to lock me into a single platform/player/etc.
* Ease of use
This is important for almost anything to gain popularity.
You have 4 of 6, not too bad.
Amazing. At my Catholic high school we had the option of ordering class rings, which most of us decided to do. One side had the shield with the cross inscribed on it which was the school insignia, the other side could have one of a bunch of preselected designs. I opted for the image of a dragon on that side as did some others.. and no one had a problem with this. At a private Catholic school. And yet you wouldn't have been allowed to do this at your public school?
Or financial. $40/month is a hell of a lot for most people to pay for -Internet access-.