Don't be blinded by the fact that eDonkey is/was a company, it was a miniscule operation with little or no income, perfectly comparable with you and me in this case. So, yes, my claim still stands.
So all corporations are not corporations? Are then not all citizens really citizens?
A poor corporation is really like a citizen, and a really "rich" person is actually a corporation in disguise?
These days, you can do just about anything and it's very rare for an American court to stop you from driving because - at least in most of America - life without a car is nearly impossible. They can put restrictions on your driving, but they usually can't stop you from owning/using a car entirely.
I don't know, there are many cities with an option called "public transportation." And indeed, taking away a drivers license is a pretty common and not too unique penalty. And if you don't have a drivers license you'll probably get pretty comfortable riding a bus, or walking perhaps.
Same with internet/cell phones. A computer/cellphone may be as necessary to life as a car. But that doesn't prevent you from losing the right to use them. If they meant that much to him, he probably should have respected them a little bit more. But he chose his actions, and now has to live with his consequences. Yeah, sucks to be him. But under the current system, that's life.
If they stop supporting this, however, does anyone know if Wine runs IE okay?
I don't think anyone said anything about Opera not supporting spoofing browser strings anymore. What they said was that they would quit using Internet Explorer as the default. If you want it to spoof IE, you'll have to change it yourself. Which, of course, is the way it should be.
So what do I do with this? Does it now become valuable because it is unopened, and contains the Hot Coffee content, or do I throw it in the trash because I don't plan on buying a PS2... ugh!
3 political appointees who easily are corrupted by lobbies.
I'm missing the part where 3 congressional appointees, or 3 UL appointees, or 3 IETF appointees would not be easily corrupted. See, I'm pretty sure that it's not the FCC title that "corrupts" them. I'm guessing that the corruption happens because they have very political, partisan responsibilities. And they become political because Americans disagree strongly as to the right answers.
No, the only remove partisanship from the responsibilies of the FCC is for all Americans to basically be monolithic in their views on how those responsibilites are to be handled. As you probably already realize, that's not going to happen.
A police officer on the side of the road pulled him over and said he was doing 60 miles an hour in a 25 mile an hour zone.e accepted the ticket and signed it. Knowing it was not possible for him to have been doing that speed he returned to the site the next day with his GPS unit and laptop in the car along with his wife driving. They drove the route 5 times and mapped the distance by using the GPS and mileage odometer on the car. They were careful to do it at the same time during the day (rush hour) so the traffic conditions would be at least similar and the timing on the lights would be similar.
It was not possible for him to have traveled that distance at that speed.
Huh? Speeding isn't about an average speed. It isn't about traveled a specific distace too quickly. It's about being at a certain point with a speed to fast. So to say that you weren't speeding because of a distance you had traveled to get to that point doesn't make sense at all. What if he had traveled at 20mph 95% of the time and 65mph 5% of the time. He's still guilty even though he couldn't have made it to that point at that time going 65mph the whole way there!
Furthermore, dark or not, I'm guessing that had he been only going 25mph when the police office noticed the speeding vehicle that passed him, even in the dark, an officer would easily be able to pick out a car going twice as fast as another. It's not like their speeds were close, if what the poster said was true.
Yes they will. They will be asked to leave or disperse quietly. I'm sure that taking off their glasses would be a worthy alternative should they desire a little pain. But I'm guessing most rioted would leave the glasses on and beat it out of there. Hopefully anyways.
Let me put this differently: anything phenomenon must have a phenomenal cause. ID ignores this
Really? It does? Prove to me how. Don't just make what seems random statements. Provide facts and agruments. Prove that ID doesn't have anything to do with science. I'm pretty sure that 95%+ people on slashdot know nothing more then ID has something to do with a "God." They have no clue what ID is, and couldn't prove that it doesn't involve science if their life depended on it.
ID has nothing to do with science, and/. is obsessed with science.
How do you know that ID has nothing to do with science? Here I read a dozen posts on slashdot stating that ID is not science, but not one is trying to make an argument based on facts, much less being compelling an any way that their statement is true.
Let's prove first that anyone on slashdot even knows what ID is, and then we can debate its scientific merit. Until then, we may as well be arguing that the moon isn't made of green cheese.
They could be just as secret as the paper ballots. Voter sees the printout, verifies to him/herself that's what he/she voted for, puts it in the sealed box. Just as secret+anonymous as paper ballots that you put in the sealed box, except it's used as backup in case of computer malfunction or fraud or hacking.
No, the "paper receipts" that I've heard argued for are ones that the voter would take with them. You know, put in your wallet and leave the polling place. Then later, that "paper receipt" could be used to confirm that your vote was really counted officially, or I've even heard some say that there could be a website that people could use to see that their vote was actually counted they way they voted.
Paper ballots have a record of your vote too, dumbass. Even with paper ballots, it's still a secret vote. What we need is for the electronic voting machines to have a printout that the voter can verify, then put in a sealed box that is treated just like the paper ballot box would be, and used as backup.
Bingo! Which is why I think it's stupid that Democrats what a paper receipt that voters would take with them that they could look up to confirm their vote later. I mean, if electronic ballots work the same way as paper ballots, why deprive people of the secret ballot. It just doesn't seem right.
The result will be a one party system that doesn't call itself a one party system, with enough token Democrats to befuddle the American people into believing they still live in a representative republic (aka democracy).
This is unprecedented, terribly dangerous, and unsurprising that it would be the Bush administration presiding over this change in affairs.
I believe that's the position that the Democrats were in most of the last century. The Republicans were by and far a minority party, much farther behind then the Democrats are now even. Now that the Democrats are the minority, it's time for them to whine and cry and scream about how they can't have their power back. Boo-hoo! It's comes and goes as easy as that.
That this is why the vote of an individual in an election is anonymous.
Which is why I find it funny that it's the Democrats who are the first to scream that we need paper receipts that tie back to your vote so that we can have electronic voting machines that are just as reliable as ATM machines. They'd be willing to give up the secret ballot, just because of an alledged 'fear' that 'republicans' are manipulating the vote?
I mean, I want to stop voter fraud as much as the next guy, but I don't think that giving up the secret ballot is the way to do it.
And why would'nt they bring out a version of their product also for linux (or maybe redhat and suse linux? ) After all they are said to have the microsoft phobia and what better way to strike microsoft than to port their excellent products to the linux platform - it is like literally pulling the rug from under microsoft's feet. That will open the flood gates of people moving over to linux. That could also be a nail in the coffin of Apple;).
They probably would, but I'm afraid that their Microsoft "phobia" isn't near the phobia they probably have of releasing a product for Linux and having the Linux community come after them with torches and pitchforks for daring to defile the Linux platform with commercial software.
IMHO the Harvard administration should have gone to the faculty that teach business ethics and asked THEM for THEIR opinion of the ethics of peeking before frying the applicants.
Maybe they did. They never said they didn't anyways.
Now here comes along AOL saying that they WILL monitor and so, I have to ask, if we send child porn through IM, doesn't this mean that if AOL lets it go through, AOL can be taken down for allowing trafficing of child porn because they have given up their common carrier status?
I apparently misread the TOS where they said that they WILL monitor.
No Duty to Monitor
AOL is not required to pre-screen Content available on the AIM Products, including the content of any messaging that occurs on or through the AIM service, although AOL reserves the right to do so in its sole discretion. AOL is not liable for Content that is provided by others. AOL reserves the right to remove Content that, in its sole judgment, does not meet its standards or does not comply with these Terms of Service, but AOL is not responsible for any failure or delay in removing such material.
To be perfectly honest, the TOS in question, doesn't say that they WILL monitor, but it says that AOL could take materials from AIM and use them in ways that AOL wishes. Perhaps as part of a chat session displayed in an AOL ad.
"...I can already feel the chilling effects from here."
That's funny, because I'm not feeling the chilling effects from here in Minnesota. But that might be because we are having a meteorological heat warm at the moment.
Quick Everyone! We need to stop buying Dells. Maybe then Michael Dell won't have money to spend on an inaugural ball. And as everyone knows, the inaugural balls are the bane of any president.
Slashdot Mirror
I missed that part in the source article. Is that really all he did?
-BrentWhat? If I'm under 18 I can commit any crime I want without consequences? I can think of a lot of minors who would like to live in your world.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, we live in a world with consequences, which a few kids are quickly going to learn about.
-BrentSo all corporations are not corporations? Are then not all citizens really citizens?
A poor corporation is really like a citizen, and a really "rich" person is actually a corporation in disguise?
It's still all bunk, I think.
-BrentObviously, the eDonkey corporation didn't have more protection then the citizens.
-BrentI don't know, there are many cities with an option called "public transportation." And indeed, taking away a drivers license is a pretty common and not too unique penalty. And if you don't have a drivers license you'll probably get pretty comfortable riding a bus, or walking perhaps.
Same with internet/cell phones. A computer/cellphone may be as necessary to life as a car. But that doesn't prevent you from losing the right to use them. If they meant that much to him, he probably should have respected them a little bit more. But he chose his actions, and now has to live with his consequences. Yeah, sucks to be him. But under the current system, that's life.
-BrentIsn't that supposed to be a good thing?
-BrentThat's interesting. How many Debian Based Distributions are there?
Is this supposed to keep Debain Based Distributions up to date at least with Debian?
-Brent
I don't think anyone said anything about Opera not supporting spoofing browser strings anymore. What they said was that they would quit using Internet Explorer as the default. If you want it to spoof IE, you'll have to change it yourself. Which, of course, is the way it should be.
-BrentDo like everyone else. Sell it on eBay.
-BrentI'm missing the part where 3 congressional appointees, or 3 UL appointees, or 3 IETF appointees would not be easily corrupted. See, I'm pretty sure that it's not the FCC title that "corrupts" them. I'm guessing that the corruption happens because they have very political, partisan responsibilities. And they become political because Americans disagree strongly as to the right answers.
No, the only remove partisanship from the responsibilies of the FCC is for all Americans to basically be monolithic in their views on how those responsibilites are to be handled. As you probably already realize, that's not going to happen.
-BrentIt was not possible for him to have traveled that distance at that speed.
Huh? Speeding isn't about an average speed. It isn't about traveled a specific distace too quickly. It's about being at a certain point with a speed to fast. So to say that you weren't speeding because of a distance you had traveled to get to that point doesn't make sense at all. What if he had traveled at 20mph 95% of the time and 65mph 5% of the time. He's still guilty even though he couldn't have made it to that point at that time going 65mph the whole way there!
Furthermore, dark or not, I'm guessing that had he been only going 25mph when the police office noticed the speeding vehicle that passed him, even in the dark, an officer would easily be able to pick out a car going twice as fast as another. It's not like their speeds were close, if what the poster said was true.
-BrentYes they will. They will be asked to leave or disperse quietly. I'm sure that taking off their glasses would be a worthy alternative should they desire a little pain. But I'm guessing most rioted would leave the glasses on and beat it out of there. Hopefully anyways.
-BrentReally? It does? Prove to me how. Don't just make what seems random statements. Provide facts and agruments. Prove that ID doesn't have anything to do with science. I'm pretty sure that 95%+ people on slashdot know nothing more then ID has something to do with a "God." They have no clue what ID is, and couldn't prove that it doesn't involve science if their life depended on it.
-BrentHow do you know that ID has nothing to do with science? Here I read a dozen posts on slashdot stating that ID is not science, but not one is trying to make an argument based on facts, much less being compelling an any way that their statement is true.
Let's prove first that anyone on slashdot even knows what ID is, and then we can debate its scientific merit. Until then, we may as well be arguing that the moon isn't made of green cheese.
-BrentNo, the "paper receipts" that I've heard argued for are ones that the voter would take with them. You know, put in your wallet and leave the polling place. Then later, that "paper receipt" could be used to confirm that your vote was really counted officially, or I've even heard some say that there could be a website that people could use to see that their vote was actually counted they way they voted.
See the issue there?
-BrentBingo! Which is why I think it's stupid that Democrats what a paper receipt that voters would take with them that they could look up to confirm their vote later. I mean, if electronic ballots work the same way as paper ballots, why deprive people of the secret ballot. It just doesn't seem right.
-BrentThis is unprecedented, terribly dangerous, and unsurprising that it would be the Bush administration presiding over this change in affairs.
I believe that's the position that the Democrats were in most of the last century. The Republicans were by and far a minority party, much farther behind then the Democrats are now even. Now that the Democrats are the minority, it's time for them to whine and cry and scream about how they can't have their power back. Boo-hoo! It's comes and goes as easy as that.
-BrentWhich is why I find it funny that it's the Democrats who are the first to scream that we need paper receipts that tie back to your vote so that we can have electronic voting machines that are just as reliable as ATM machines. They'd be willing to give up the secret ballot, just because of an alledged 'fear' that 'republicans' are manipulating the vote?
I mean, I want to stop voter fraud as much as the next guy, but I don't think that giving up the secret ballot is the way to do it.
-BrentThey probably would, but I'm afraid that their Microsoft "phobia" isn't near the phobia they probably have of releasing a product for Linux and having the Linux community come after them with torches and pitchforks for daring to defile the Linux platform with commercial software.
-BrentReally, they don't? I do. I can't think of any difference between buying a CD or buying from an online store license-wise.
-BrentMaybe they did. They never said they didn't anyways.
-BrentI apparently misread the TOS where they said that they WILL monitor.
No Duty to MonitorAOL is not required to pre-screen Content available on the AIM Products, including the content of any messaging that occurs on or through the AIM service, although AOL reserves the right to do so in its sole discretion. AOL is not liable for Content that is provided by others. AOL reserves the right to remove Content that, in its sole judgment, does not meet its standards or does not comply with these Terms of Service, but AOL is not responsible for any failure or delay in removing such material.
To be perfectly honest, the TOS in question, doesn't say that they WILL monitor, but it says that AOL could take materials from AIM and use them in ways that AOL wishes. Perhaps as part of a chat session displayed in an AOL ad.
-BrentThe article noted that this program had not cost the school anything.
-Brent
That's funny, because I'm not feeling the chilling effects from here in Minnesota. But that might be because we are having a meteorological heat warm at the moment.
-BrentQuick Everyone! We need to stop buying Dells. Maybe then Michael Dell won't have money to spend on an inaugural ball. And as everyone knows, the inaugural balls are the bane of any president.
-Brent