This is a perfectly reasonable point of view; perhaps you should try presenting it again in response to a story involving web ads or spam or billboards. One where it would actually be, ya know, relevant?
Your last sentence kind of perplexes me - do you actually believe that most spammers, ad-slingers, and billboard owners are actually reverse-moralizers intent on perverting your children's minds, rather than amoral profiteers trying to rake in the $$$ however they can and largely unconcerned with the wider effects of their activities?
What exactly does this have to do with the case at issue? This isn't about content that anyone is likely to be unable to avoid; this is about the possibility of someone publishing content that none of her neighbors would find (legally) objectionable, someone in another geographic community willingly and intentionally viewing that content, and the publisher being prosecuted for this.
The verse you cited would have been applicable if Paul had suggested that not only should the pagans be forcibly prevented from selling meat, but that all pagans in all areas that a christian might travel to should be barred from doing such.
If these games are so important to people, why are they and groups that advocate for them not putting their money and time into something community-developed like Planeshift*? It might take a few years to make it really comparable to something like SWG, but it would mean taking an active role in making their lives better, instead of just hoping that some faceless corporation doesn't fuck them in the ass in service of next quarter's profit margin.
*I'm not associated with Planeshift in any way; I don't even think it's that good. I just can't think of a better example off the top of my head.
Whoa, are you sure that definition is so workable? Does reporting on the crimes of an elected official "deleteriously impact" that politician? Does parroting misinformation to lead a country into a war "deleteriously impact" people? Does advocating restrictions on paying for political speech "deleteriously impact" people? How about advocating against them?
Someone would say yes to any of these. Should any of them be made illegal? I'm much more comfortable with an closely-circumscribed enumeration of things you are not allowed to do.
I think the gp post is referring to the fact that you can redefine the behavior of the mouse wheel. Check the mousewheel.* prefs in about:config. I also have ctrl+mousewheel scrolling full pages, and alt+mousewheel changing text size.
Is there a way to change this behavior in Konqueror?
spammers will be effectively shut out unless they're willing to send messages that can be traced back to their home postal address, real email address, and real telephone number
I think you mean "willing to send messages that can be traced back to grandma's computer which got 0wned and is now a spammer's zombie".
What EULA? This is a piece of hardware we're talking about. Not even subject to standard copyright law, much less shaky click-through "contracts". I don't own an iHP device, but I do have an iMP, and I didn't sign anything when I bought it. Are things different across the pond?
In the absence of a signed contract, copyright law, or the DMCA - none of which would seem to apply - I don't see how iRiver would have any legal grounds to control what you do with a piece of hardware you have purchased.
Not using Windows except when I absolutely can't help it, which isn't often, I haven't. What "little programs" has Google released other than the Google Bar for MSIE? Does that Google Bar add anything that Moz/Konq/Opera can't do themselves?
The classic example (at least 10 years old) is to hack up gcc so that it examines the code it's compiling, and if it decides that it's compiling/bin/login to do things a little differently, inserting a back door where there was none before.
You're almost right. The hack you're referring to was done more than 20 years ago by Ken Thompson (of UNIX fame), and described in a seminal paper entitled Reflections On Trusting Trust. Actually, the hack was even cooler than you describe: not only could the complier recognize that it was compiling the login program and insert the backdoor, it could recognize that it was compiling the C compiler and insert the code to insert the backdoor. That's so cool it gives me a boner just thinking about it.
However, the compiler in question was not GCC; GCC was not released until 1987.
If I get up to take a piss during a commercial break and come back to watch the show, am I stealing from the TV station?
Re:I don't think who will watch is the issue...
on
1984 Comes To Boston
·
· Score: 1
I think jjh37997's point is that this "concious feeling of being watched and the inherent conditioning this system creates" isn't necessarily a bad thing (provided it only maintains while in public). As Mencken said, "Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking." If you have no real expectation of privacy on the street anyway, why not try to leverage this to make people behave better in public?
The problem with current systems is that everyone is watched, but very few do the watching. This creates a gross power imbalance, and anywhere there is an imbalance of power it is sure to be abused sooner or later. Instead of trying to ensure that nobody gets this new power (probably a losing battle), try to ensure that everybody shares it more-or-less equally.
In 5-10 years you might get your 30%, but the victory might be somewhat hollow.
For the people who just want to kill Microsoft, it might seem hollow. The rest of us just want to have the freedom to run the software we like and still interact with the rest of the world. 30% marketshare in the office/desktop would be plenty to ensure this; nobody is going to risk putting off that many potential customers by using intentionally incompatible products.
If MS can compete for the high-end without a monopoly to abuse, more power to them.
Right, because that music just magically appears on someone's hard drive. You're complaining that you keep getting suckered into dropping $16.95 on CDs full of dreck, and you're calling someone else a brand victim? Corporate tool.
In order to forcably break up Microsoft's monopolies (there are more than one) you are going to have to infringe upon their rights somehow or other.
Only if you believe that "intellectual property" is a right, rather than an artificial restriction imposed by the government to promote the good of all, and rescindable when it doesn't achieve this purpose.
As others have said, various groups are working on it. In fact, there are decent Free JVMs and Java compilers, as well. The problem is that people want to run existing Java code in a Free environment. To do this, you need more than a VM; you need a complete, Free set of the core Java libraries. GNU Classpath is a project to do this, but it's far from complete, because the Java libraries are HUGE. The Sun core libraries are the thing that would be really nice to have under a GPL-compatible lisence, not the JVM.
so that drug companies can profit more easily (thus they don't have to charge as much)
How do you figure this would work? Drug companies set their prices to maximize profits; they don't just recoup development costs and give the rest back. If it were cheaper to bring drugs to market, why would they want to lower prices rather than just pocket the greater profits?
Wait... you're implying that AutoZone is a little family-run business that might be put out of business by SCO's bullshit? Please. When SCO starts sending the attack lawyers after individuals, we'll get excited again. It ain't gonna happen, though; the SCO scam is running out of steam. If you run a business that depends on OSS, you might have something to worry about from Microsoft, but you don't need to worry about SCO.
And this would come into play if, say, Linuxant tried to stop you from redistributing a modified version of this binary. I think you're right, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The question, though, is whether they can be compelled to either release the source of the drivers or stop distributing software that claims to be GPL-licensed but isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the policy is to prevent these guys from just sleeping all day on their assigned flights.
No, that can't be it.
This is a perfectly reasonable point of view; perhaps you should try presenting it again in response to a story involving web ads or spam or billboards. One where it would actually be, ya know, relevant?
Your last sentence kind of perplexes me - do you actually believe that most spammers, ad-slingers, and billboard owners are actually reverse-moralizers intent on perverting your children's minds, rather than amoral profiteers trying to rake in the $$$ however they can and largely unconcerned with the wider effects of their activities?
What exactly does this have to do with the case at issue? This isn't about content that anyone is likely to be unable to avoid; this is about the possibility of someone publishing content that none of her neighbors would find (legally) objectionable, someone in another geographic community willingly and intentionally viewing that content, and the publisher being prosecuted for this.
The verse you cited would have been applicable if Paul had suggested that not only should the pagans be forcibly prevented from selling meat, but that all pagans in all areas that a christian might travel to should be barred from doing such.
No, two years: one for the Rethuglicans to lose control of the Congress, another for the impeachment proceedings of Bush & Cheney to run their course.
/me continues daydreaming...
does anyone else think we need a new word for that - "lobbribe" perhaps?
Doesn't "lobby" pretty much cover it already?
If these games are so important to people, why are they and groups that advocate for them not putting their money and time into something community-developed like Planeshift*? It might take a few years to make it really comparable to something like SWG, but it would mean taking an active role in making their lives better, instead of just hoping that some faceless corporation doesn't fuck them in the ass in service of next quarter's profit margin.
*I'm not associated with Planeshift in any way; I don't even think it's that good. I just can't think of a better example off the top of my head.
Whoa, are you sure that definition is so workable? Does reporting on the crimes of an elected official "deleteriously impact" that politician? Does parroting misinformation to lead a country into a war "deleteriously impact" people? Does advocating restrictions on paying for political speech "deleteriously impact" people? How about advocating against them?
Someone would say yes to any of these. Should any of them be made illegal? I'm much more comfortable with an closely-circumscribed enumeration of things you are not allowed to do.
you need to read every single bill presented on your own, a task that's far too overwhelming for any individual who has a job/family/etc
Shit, are you kidding? That's far too overwhelming a task for the people in the fucking legislatures, much less anyone who has another job.
I think the gp post is referring to the fact that you can redefine the behavior of the mouse wheel. Check the mousewheel.* prefs in about:config. I also have ctrl+mousewheel scrolling full pages, and alt+mousewheel changing text size.
Is there a way to change this behavior in Konqueror?
spammers will be effectively shut out unless they're willing to send messages that can be traced back to their home postal address, real email address, and real telephone number
I think you mean "willing to send messages that can be traced back to grandma's computer which got 0wned and is now a spammer's zombie".
re-read the product EULA
What EULA? This is a piece of hardware we're talking about. Not even subject to standard copyright law, much less shaky click-through "contracts". I don't own an iHP device, but I do have an iMP, and I didn't sign anything when I bought it. Are things different across the pond?
In the absence of a signed contract, copyright law, or the DMCA - none of which would seem to apply - I don't see how iRiver would have any legal grounds to control what you do with a piece of hardware you have purchased.
Not using Windows except when I absolutely can't help it, which isn't often, I haven't. What "little programs" has Google released other than the Google Bar for MSIE? Does that Google Bar add anything that Moz/Konq/Opera can't do themselves?
Christ on a stick, post a link to a page of valid HTML that KHTML doesn't render properly, or fucking shut up. You just sound like a troll.
I personally prefer Firefox to Konq (even in KDE), but not because KHTML doesn't rock.
The classic example (at least 10 years old) is to hack up gcc so that it examines the code it's compiling, and if it decides that it's compiling /bin/login to do things a little differently, inserting a back door where there was none before.
You're almost right. The hack you're referring to was done more than 20 years ago by Ken Thompson (of UNIX fame), and described in a seminal paper entitled Reflections On Trusting Trust. Actually, the hack was even cooler than you describe: not only could the complier recognize that it was compiling the login program and insert the backdoor, it could recognize that it was compiling the C compiler and insert the code to insert the backdoor. That's so cool it gives me a boner just thinking about it.
However, the compiler in question was not GCC; GCC was not released until 1987.
If I get up to take a piss during a commercial break and come back to watch the show, am I stealing from the TV station?
I think jjh37997's point is that this "concious feeling of being watched and the inherent conditioning this system creates" isn't necessarily a bad thing (provided it only maintains while in public). As Mencken said, "Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking." If you have no real expectation of privacy on the street anyway, why not try to leverage this to make people behave better in public?
The problem with current systems is that everyone is watched, but very few do the watching. This creates a gross power imbalance, and anywhere there is an imbalance of power it is sure to be abused sooner or later. Instead of trying to ensure that nobody gets this new power (probably a losing battle), try to ensure that everybody shares it more-or-less equally.
In 5-10 years you might get your 30%, but the victory might be somewhat hollow.
For the people who just want to kill Microsoft, it might seem hollow. The rest of us just want to have the freedom to run the software we like and still interact with the rest of the world. 30% marketshare in the office/desktop would be plenty to ensure this; nobody is going to risk putting off that many potential customers by using intentionally incompatible products.
If MS can compete for the high-end without a monopoly to abuse, more power to them.
Right, because that music just magically appears on someone's hard drive. You're complaining that you keep getting suckered into dropping $16.95 on CDs full of dreck, and you're calling someone else a brand victim? Corporate tool.
If you have that problem a lot, you might try listening to bands that don't suck ass.
In order to forcably break up Microsoft's monopolies (there are more than one) you are going to have to infringe upon their rights somehow or other.
Only if you believe that "intellectual property" is a right, rather than an artificial restriction imposed by the government to promote the good of all, and rescindable when it doesn't achieve this purpose.
And a picture of the iHP-120, a more direct competitor to the iPod (and, IMHO, substantially better than the iPod).
As others have said, various groups are working on it. In fact, there are decent Free JVMs and Java compilers, as well. The problem is that people want to run existing Java code in a Free environment. To do this, you need more than a VM; you need a complete, Free set of the core Java libraries. GNU Classpath is a project to do this, but it's far from complete, because the Java libraries are HUGE. The Sun core libraries are the thing that would be really nice to have under a GPL-compatible lisence, not the JVM.
so that drug companies can profit more easily (thus they don't have to charge as much)
How do you figure this would work? Drug companies set their prices to maximize profits; they don't just recoup development costs and give the rest back. If it were cheaper to bring drugs to market, why would they want to lower prices rather than just pocket the greater profits?
Wait... you're implying that AutoZone is a little family-run business that might be put out of business by SCO's bullshit? Please. When SCO starts sending the attack lawyers after individuals, we'll get excited again. It ain't gonna happen, though; the SCO scam is running out of steam. If you run a business that depends on OSS, you might have something to worry about from Microsoft, but you don't need to worry about SCO.
And this would come into play if, say, Linuxant tried to stop you from redistributing a modified version of this binary. I think you're right, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The question, though, is whether they can be compelled to either release the source of the drivers or stop distributing software that claims to be GPL-licensed but isn't.