Is it libelous? Is it threatening? If it's neither, there is no legal grounds to remove it.
Twitter may decide that they "don't want to be that kind of service", but that's their business decision, as is how they proceed against TOS violaters, or whether they do at all.
BSD users, who especially at this time (I'm talking like 1999-2000, and before), tended to be older and less fanatical about evangelizing "free software" as some sort of political end
Funny, I thought the opposite: the fanatical BSD fanboys have picked themselves an equally fanatical desktop environment.
Well, that's a nice theory. However, it's not analogous. First, the monomers of polyethylene are harmless. Second, this copolymer probably needs to have some reactivity in order to detect anything.
As I was saying, nobody knows whether it's harmful, but there is a good chance that it is.
If you want people to respect the GPL then you must respect copyright law in general.
The word "respecting" is such a weasel word, so let's be clear. Conforming with laws doesn't mean agreeing with them. I conform to many laws that I, nevertheless, oppose and want to abolish. Furthermore, copyright law isn't an all-or-nothing proposition; I agree with limited copyright and strong fair use. I certainly do not agree with current copyright terms or fair use restrictions.
So, it is completely consistent to insist that people conform to the GPL as long as current copyright law is in effect, and yet strongly oppose ACTA. In fact, licenses like the GPL are designed to basically make copyright law irrelevant by creating an ever larger body of content to which these draconian restrictions that lawmakers dream up do not apply, precisely because the license itself preserves the freedoms that lawmakers are trying to take away.
And it looks like it's working. With more and more fine tuning of these licenses, big media companies may increasingly find themselves in a situation where they simply can't use the content they want to use because if they do, they have to give up their onerous restrictions on their own content.
This is trying to restrict distributing copyrighted material. This had nothing to do with free speech.
It has a lot to do with free speech, since one of the many things that are bad about current copyright law is that it's being used to restrict free speech.
If you want to say that you think GW Bush likes to have tea parties with stuffed animals nobody is going to stop you.
I can perhaps say that, but GWB might use ACTA and copyright law to keep me from presenting the actual footage proving my case.
These people are dishonest even in naming their legislation. This is the "Anti-Copying Trade Agreement", or perhaps more aptly, the "Anti Fair-Use Trade Agreement".
Isn't it kind of odd that the desktop version of a distro that prides itself on its liberal license and use of C ends up with the C++-based desktop under the GPL, instead of the C-based desktop under the LGPL?
Where the hell are you coming up with this? The slashdot story was about a GOVERNMENT surveillence system, not private people, and that GOVERNMENT system is tied to all kinds of data mining for the government (and only the government) to use at their whim an discretion for any purpose they like.
And you keep missing the point that that doesn't matter because there is extensive PRIVATE surveillance and data mining in place anyway, and the government can use that.
I'm not advocating anything either, I'm suggesting that people will get fed up with it at some point.
You keep babbling on about people getting "fed up". Fed up with WHAT?
It's called civil disopedience.
Attacking property with baseball bats and EM pulses is a felony, not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience might be standing in front of a camera and blocking its view.
If someone really wants to switch to a *nix OS and give it no thought whatsoever, then OS X has been a great choice for years, and it doesn't come with the problems that plague ubuntu.
I have three OS X machines, and that's so wrong it isn't even funny. While the base OS X is fairly easy to install (it better be, given the limited range of hardware), adding applications and development software to it is a lot of work. And OS X lacks any kind of automated package management system, meaning that software constantly pesters users about installing this or that upgrade.
And once installed, OS X is full of problems. Not even its file system is UNIX compatible. Interoperability in a UNIX environment is a headache. The graphics subsystem is slow. And then there's the mysterious spinning beach balls of death.
Well, we can both be right. The Novell/SuSE/Microsoft connection may cause SuSE to deliver a better product for your kind of mixed Windows/Linux server environment, and it may at the same time make their product inferior in many other environments.
In our organization, almost none of the concerns you mention matter; the little Windows usage and software we have, we support with a couple of Windows servers. But Linux usability on the desktop most certainly matters, and a consistent client and server environment is also desirable, which makes Ubuntu superior to SuSE for us on both the client and server.
The Mono guys don't "aggressively" push their stuff into SuSE. They're not in charge of packaging or software selection.
Well, if they actually were in charge of software selection, they wouldn't have to push it, they'd just put it in. Instead, they are in the same company, which means that they can influence if they make themselves heard.
And it's a fact that SuSE uses more Mono out of the box than Ubuntu. Furthermore, much as I think that Mono is a good idea in general, Beagle and Tomboy have serious problems, and the only reason I can think of that anybody distro would install them by default is that the distro has some stake in them.
But, hey, if you know more about the behind-the-scenes at Novell and SuSE, please do share.
Oh? You think not? If you don't have chroot cages, or some other more complex and thus more likely to trash your system tools to isolate SCP or SFTP users, a pernicious user can overwhelm just about any writable directory on the system.
If you don't want people to be able to "overwhelm" any writable directory, then f*cking use the mechanisms that are designed to prevent people from doing that. If you don't know what those are, then you have no business doing UNIX or Linux system administration. Hint: chroot isn't one of those mechanisms.
Even setting up the chroot cages for contemporary versions of OpenSSH is awkward.
Well, duh, that's because chroot isn't intended for that purpose.
It's not technically a chroot cage in those instances, but it's a well-isolated upload/download location, and quite effective at keeping users out of the rest of the OS.
So, it's, in fact, not a chroot cage at all, it's an application-implemented set of access and security policies. Which is what I was saying.
That may be, and maybe you can even construct some legal theory out of that under which the borrower is the aggrieved party.
But the GP was holding the lenders and brokers morally responsible. I'm sorry, but you are an adult and have the legal right to vote and enter into contracts. If you got full disclosure of the APR and your monthly costs, it is your responsibility alone to figure out whether you can afford it.
If, for example, a user doesn't know how to choose which DE they want during installation, they should seriously rethink their choice to switch to Linux.
I know how to do it, I just don't want to bother. With Ubuntu, I stick the right CD in the drive, boot up, see that everything works, and click on "install", and I get a predictable installation. I can give a CD to others, and they get the same installation. It's easy. It's good. It's user-friendly.
I understand that Canonical wants to make Linux user-friendly, but the extent that they go to achieve that is ridiculous at times.
I think the reason that HP ships such a poor installation of SuSE is that they probably also view SuSE as a way of exerting pressure on Microsoft; shipping a good Linux system is secondary. Furthermore, for people who only want to use the machine for note taking and web browsing, the SuSE installation is sufficient, and that's all that these machines are intended for. HP may well not want you to be able to upgrade the software easily.
But, yes, I also think that the connection between Novell and SuSE contributes to SuSE's problems; I'm sure that the Mono developers push their stuff aggressively into SuSE. I have to correct you, though: Microsoft may have a patent on.NET (whether that's valid is an open question), but.NET packages do not usually ship with Mono and aren't usually needed. There are no known Microsoft patents on Mono as it usually ships with Linux systems like SuSE.
First of all, we are talking moral responsibility ("evil"), not legal responsibility here.
Second, TLA requires a clear disclosure of all costs and obligations; it doesn't impose a legal responsibility on the lender to keep the borrower from doing something stupid.
There is a new version of Ubuntu, so what. In the summary there was also e mentino of Suse's package for the HP notebook, why don't I hear anyone about that?
The version of SuSE that ships with the HP 2133 has big problems: it's slow because it's burdened with inappropriate packages like Beagle, its wireless connectivity is poor, if you try to install packages, it asks you to insert a non-existent DVD into a non-existet DVD drive, external screen configurations are limited, and there's something wrong with the touch pad driver causing it to "stick". In addition, I found the administrative menus and preference menus to be cluttered and pretty obscure at times.
I used to be a SuSE user. I was going to give SuSE another try with the 2133, but it was such a miserable experience that I just blew it away and installed Ubuntu.
If you can get there, stake a plot of land, and defend it against others, it's effectively yours. After a few years, your claim would likely be legally recognized as well.
What people actually mean when they say that they want "property rights" is that they want to divide up the moon among people who then want to lean back and let other people do the hard work of exploring. In fact, that's quite analogous to patents, where people patent an application without implementing anything, and then wait for others to do the hard work. Those kinds of "property rights" don't advance technology, they retard it.
If you don't like the "defending" bit in moon property rights, then maybe we can codify something like: "every person that has resided for 1 year on the moon can claim 100 sq miles as their own" (of course, that land might be traded for the cost of getting to the moon in the first place). But nothing less will do.
Where did it begin? What "advantage" is the crystal structure over a normal green coloring?
Surface microstructures exist in lots of insects and they are used for all sorts of different purposes. They may have initially evolved to keep water from wetting the exoskeleton. As they got smaller and more efficient at that task, they also became optically active.
The ancestor of these beetles had such microstructures already, and all it took to make them green was tuning the spacing and size a little through a tiny mutation.
But this being slashdot ill probably get flamed for criticizing evolution and defending intelligent design.
Well, face-to-face, people may be polite enough not to say anything, but don't kid yourself: they still think you're a fool.
I hope your scp setup has chroot cages set up, because otherwise, your clients can go poking around the rest of your SCP server and potentially do all sorts of damage.
You can use chroot as an additional security blanket, to protect against possible bugs in scp. But if you don't use chroot, that doesn't mean "your clients can go poking around the rest of your SCP server". Furthermore, there are many alternatives to chroot, including vserver and AppArmor.
chroot cages are built in
There are plenty of webdav implementations that do not come with chroot.
I'm sorry, but a little knowledge is dangerous when it comes to security, and your blind faith in chroot is dangerous. Chroot is neither necessary nor sufficient for ensuring security.
all of this resulted in a lot of borrowers getting approved for products they couldn't afford
The borrower signed on the dotted line for their monthly obligations; they don't need the lender to tell them whether they can afford that.
Borrowers are not totally blameless, but lenders and brokers were the really evil parties here.
The borrowers are 100% responsible for the obligations they signed for. The lenders and brokers are not responsible for protecting the borrower's interests.
I suspect that people will get fed up with it eventually, and start taking matters into their own hands. Small, directed EMP pulses and other kinds of short burst energy can goof up the equipment. Baseball bats work well too, etc.. And, if you're not into that, legions of spray painters can do wonders."
You're suggesting violence against your neighbors and tourists, because that's where the real surveillance is happening: with web cams and video cameras. The government doesn't have to put up its own web cams.
Furthermore, there is nothing to "get fed up with". People have never had a right to privacy outside their homes; why would anybody get "fed up" with what has been the status quo for centuries?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it libelous? Is it threatening? If it's neither, there is no legal grounds to remove it.
Twitter may decide that they "don't want to be that kind of service", but that's their business decision, as is how they proceed against TOS violaters, or whether they do at all.
BSD users, who especially at this time (I'm talking like 1999-2000, and before), tended to be older and less fanatical about evangelizing "free software" as some sort of political end
Funny, I thought the opposite: the fanatical BSD fanboys have picked themselves an equally fanatical desktop environment.
the frame bends so as to lean the rider forward thus lengthening the wheelbase and moving the center of gravity forward.
This means riders crash head-forward into things. That eliminates disability and pain. Great design!
Well, that's a nice theory. However, it's not analogous. First, the monomers of polyethylene are harmless. Second, this copolymer probably needs to have some reactivity in order to detect anything.
As I was saying, nobody knows whether it's harmful, but there is a good chance that it is.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1809825/Environmental-Protection-Agency-flourene
Well, OK, technically it's silaflourene, but that has a good chance of being worse.
I really think you don't want this stuff sprayed on you.
If you want people to respect the GPL then you must respect copyright law in general.
The word "respecting" is such a weasel word, so let's be clear. Conforming with laws doesn't mean agreeing with them. I conform to many laws that I, nevertheless, oppose and want to abolish. Furthermore, copyright law isn't an all-or-nothing proposition; I agree with limited copyright and strong fair use. I certainly do not agree with current copyright terms or fair use restrictions.
So, it is completely consistent to insist that people conform to the GPL as long as current copyright law is in effect, and yet strongly oppose ACTA. In fact, licenses like the GPL are designed to basically make copyright law irrelevant by creating an ever larger body of content to which these draconian restrictions that lawmakers dream up do not apply, precisely because the license itself preserves the freedoms that lawmakers are trying to take away.
And it looks like it's working. With more and more fine tuning of these licenses, big media companies may increasingly find themselves in a situation where they simply can't use the content they want to use because if they do, they have to give up their onerous restrictions on their own content.
This is trying to restrict distributing copyrighted material. This had nothing to do with free speech.
It has a lot to do with free speech, since one of the many things that are bad about current copyright law is that it's being used to restrict free speech.
If you want to say that you think GW Bush likes to have tea parties with stuffed animals nobody is going to stop you.
I can perhaps say that, but GWB might use ACTA and copyright law to keep me from presenting the actual footage proving my case.
"Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement"?
These people are dishonest even in naming their legislation. This is the "Anti-Copying Trade Agreement", or perhaps more aptly, the "Anti Fair-Use Trade Agreement".
Isn't it kind of odd that the desktop version of a distro that prides itself on its liberal license and use of C ends up with the C++-based desktop under the GPL, instead of the C-based desktop under the LGPL?
Where the hell are you coming up with this? The slashdot story was about a GOVERNMENT surveillence system, not private people, and that GOVERNMENT system is tied to all kinds of data mining for the government (and only the government) to use at their whim an discretion for any purpose they like.
And you keep missing the point that that doesn't matter because there is extensive PRIVATE surveillance and data mining in place anyway, and the government can use that.
I'm not advocating anything either, I'm suggesting that people will get fed up with it at some point.
You keep babbling on about people getting "fed up". Fed up with WHAT?
It's called civil disopedience.
Attacking property with baseball bats and EM pulses is a felony, not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience might be standing in front of a camera and blocking its view.
If someone really wants to switch to a *nix OS and give it no thought whatsoever, then OS X has been a great choice for years, and it doesn't come with the problems that plague ubuntu.
I have three OS X machines, and that's so wrong it isn't even funny. While the base OS X is fairly easy to install (it better be, given the limited range of hardware), adding applications and development software to it is a lot of work. And OS X lacks any kind of automated package management system, meaning that software constantly pesters users about installing this or that upgrade.
And once installed, OS X is full of problems. Not even its file system is UNIX compatible. Interoperability in a UNIX environment is a headache. The graphics subsystem is slow. And then there's the mysterious spinning beach balls of death.
Well, we can both be right. The Novell/SuSE/Microsoft connection may cause SuSE to deliver a better product for your kind of mixed Windows/Linux server environment, and it may at the same time make their product inferior in many other environments.
In our organization, almost none of the concerns you mention matter; the little Windows usage and software we have, we support with a couple of Windows servers. But Linux usability on the desktop most certainly matters, and a consistent client and server environment is also desirable, which makes Ubuntu superior to SuSE for us on both the client and server.
The Mono guys don't "aggressively" push their stuff into SuSE. They're not in charge of packaging or software selection.
Well, if they actually were in charge of software selection, they wouldn't have to push it, they'd just put it in. Instead, they are in the same company, which means that they can influence if they make themselves heard.
And it's a fact that SuSE uses more Mono out of the box than Ubuntu. Furthermore, much as I think that Mono is a good idea in general, Beagle and Tomboy have serious problems, and the only reason I can think of that anybody distro would install them by default is that the distro has some stake in them.
But, hey, if you know more about the behind-the-scenes at Novell and SuSE, please do share.
Oh? You think not? If you don't have chroot cages, or some other more complex and thus more likely to trash your system tools to isolate SCP or SFTP users, a pernicious user can overwhelm just about any writable directory on the system.
If you don't want people to be able to "overwhelm" any writable directory, then f*cking use the mechanisms that are designed to prevent people from doing that. If you don't know what those are, then you have no business doing UNIX or Linux system administration. Hint: chroot isn't one of those mechanisms.
Even setting up the chroot cages for contemporary versions of OpenSSH is awkward.
Well, duh, that's because chroot isn't intended for that purpose.
It's not technically a chroot cage in those instances, but it's a well-isolated upload/download location, and quite effective at keeping users out of the rest of the OS.
So, it's, in fact, not a chroot cage at all, it's an application-implemented set of access and security policies. Which is what I was saying.
That may be, and maybe you can even construct some legal theory out of that under which the borrower is the aggrieved party.
But the GP was holding the lenders and brokers morally responsible. I'm sorry, but you are an adult and have the legal right to vote and enter into contracts. If you got full disclosure of the APR and your monthly costs, it is your responsibility alone to figure out whether you can afford it.
If, for example, a user doesn't know how to choose which DE they want during installation, they should seriously rethink their choice to switch to Linux.
I know how to do it, I just don't want to bother. With Ubuntu, I stick the right CD in the drive, boot up, see that everything works, and click on "install", and I get a predictable installation. I can give a CD to others, and they get the same installation. It's easy. It's good. It's user-friendly.
I understand that Canonical wants to make Linux user-friendly, but the extent that they go to achieve that is ridiculous at times.
Good. That's the right attitude.
I think the reason that HP ships such a poor installation of SuSE is that they probably also view SuSE as a way of exerting pressure on Microsoft; shipping a good Linux system is secondary. Furthermore, for people who only want to use the machine for note taking and web browsing, the SuSE installation is sufficient, and that's all that these machines are intended for. HP may well not want you to be able to upgrade the software easily.
.NET (whether that's valid is an open question), but .NET packages do not usually ship with Mono and aren't usually needed. There are no known Microsoft patents on Mono as it usually ships with Linux systems like SuSE.
But, yes, I also think that the connection between Novell and SuSE contributes to SuSE's problems; I'm sure that the Mono developers push their stuff aggressively into SuSE. I have to correct you, though: Microsoft may have a patent on
First of all, we are talking moral responsibility ("evil"), not legal responsibility here.
Second, TLA requires a clear disclosure of all costs and obligations; it doesn't impose a legal responsibility on the lender to keep the borrower from doing something stupid.
That's great. I don't get why ubuntu needs to release a new "distro" for every single configuration.
Because it's easy for end users. And that's what should count. One reason Ubuntu is so popular is that they understand this.
There is a new version of Ubuntu, so what. In the summary there was also e mentino of Suse's package for the HP notebook, why don't I hear anyone about that?
The version of SuSE that ships with the HP 2133 has big problems: it's slow because it's burdened with inappropriate packages like Beagle, its wireless connectivity is poor, if you try to install packages, it asks you to insert a non-existent DVD into a non-existet DVD drive, external screen configurations are limited, and there's something wrong with the touch pad driver causing it to "stick". In addition, I found the administrative menus and preference menus to be cluttered and pretty obscure at times.
I used to be a SuSE user. I was going to give SuSE another try with the 2133, but it was such a miserable experience that I just blew it away and installed Ubuntu.
So, now you heard about SuSE on the 2133.
Most people in such situations seem to be using encrypted PDFs. They're not as general as PGP, but they are a lot easier to use for recipients.
Of course, an even simpler way of dealing with it is to give people access through SSL protected web pages.
If you can get there, stake a plot of land, and defend it against others, it's effectively yours. After a few years, your claim would likely be legally recognized as well.
What people actually mean when they say that they want "property rights" is that they want to divide up the moon among people who then want to lean back and let other people do the hard work of exploring. In fact, that's quite analogous to patents, where people patent an application without implementing anything, and then wait for others to do the hard work. Those kinds of "property rights" don't advance technology, they retard it.
If you don't like the "defending" bit in moon property rights, then maybe we can codify something like: "every person that has resided for 1 year on the moon can claim 100 sq miles as their own" (of course, that land might be traded for the cost of getting to the moon in the first place). But nothing less will do.
Where did it begin? What "advantage" is the crystal structure over a normal green coloring?
Surface microstructures exist in lots of insects and they are used for all sorts of different purposes. They may have initially evolved to keep water from wetting the exoskeleton. As they got smaller and more efficient at that task, they also became optically active.
The ancestor of these beetles had such microstructures already, and all it took to make them green was tuning the spacing and size a little through a tiny mutation.
But this being slashdot ill probably get flamed for criticizing evolution and defending intelligent design.
Well, face-to-face, people may be polite enough not to say anything, but don't kid yourself: they still think you're a fool.
I hope your scp setup has chroot cages set up, because otherwise, your clients can go poking around the rest of your SCP server and potentially do all sorts of damage.
You can use chroot as an additional security blanket, to protect against possible bugs in scp. But if you don't use chroot, that doesn't mean "your clients can go poking around the rest of your SCP server". Furthermore, there are many alternatives to chroot, including vserver and AppArmor.
chroot cages are built in
There are plenty of webdav implementations that do not come with chroot.
I'm sorry, but a little knowledge is dangerous when it comes to security, and your blind faith in chroot is dangerous. Chroot is neither necessary nor sufficient for ensuring security.
all of this resulted in a lot of borrowers getting approved for products they couldn't afford
The borrower signed on the dotted line for their monthly obligations; they don't need the lender to tell them whether they can afford that.
Borrowers are not totally blameless, but lenders and brokers were the really evil parties here.
The borrowers are 100% responsible for the obligations they signed for. The lenders and brokers are not responsible for protecting the borrower's interests.
The issue is your suggestion that
You're suggesting violence against your neighbors and tourists, because that's where the real surveillance is happening: with web cams and video cameras. The government doesn't have to put up its own web cams.
Furthermore, there is nothing to "get fed up with". People have never had a right to privacy outside their homes; why would anybody get "fed up" with what has been the status quo for centuries?