>> This is equivelent of being arrested for credit card fraud because you paid your credit card bill late.
Nope. It's equivalent to tricking the credit card company into adding a few zeroes to your limit and racking up bills of $250,000 and then not paying the bill.
The Internet isn't some kind of place that exists apart from the laws and regulations that govern us all.
The Delta 4 is a new vehicle, with a core component using the first new rocket engine in the U.S. fleet since the Shuttle was designed in the '70's. It has about as much in common with earlier Delta's as Lockheed's Atlas 5 has in common with the vehicle that put the Mercury astronauts in orbit.
>>...much of the mindless dreck being sold by the RIAA is sold on shiny discs with one or two decent tunes...songs they'll soon grow tired of anyway.
Why do people continue to buy CD's by musicians they already know they don't like? If you buy a CD that's crap, why on Earth would you want to spend more money (or more time copying) the next CD by the same folks? Maybe there is just one track that will hold you interest for a day or so. So what? No one is forcing you to buy the thing? If you want it that bad, get it, but don't pretend you didn't know the other tracks were sewage.
I mean, I already know I don't like boiled cabbage, so I don't keep stocking up on cabbage just in case it starts to taste good.
Could Give NASA A Reason To Stop Going in Circles
on
Stopping Killer Asteroids
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The American space program has, literally, been going in circles for the last 30 years. It desperately needs someplace to go. Now, it looks like NASA is going to keep the shuttle flying for another decade or so, and pull out the old DynaSoar blueprints for a re-do. And where will it go? Well, around in circles for a few days when it ferries new crew members up to the space station.
But, building the capability to send people to investigate and deal with an asteriod or comet that has Earth in its sights would give NASA a place to go. If we don't have the courage to develop an interplanetary capability to ward off armageddon, maybe we don't deserve to survive.
You may be able to "educate" some folks, but very, very few people let luxury issues determine the way they vote. And that's what this is: a luxury issue. No one needs to buy CD's, no one needs to watch the latest Harry Potter movie. People with families to support and bills to pay care about the price of groceries a lot more than they do about whether or not they can copy a CD.
Many products disappear because no one wants them. For starters, the Edsel, New Coke, IBM's PS2 line and Microsoft Bob.
The DMCA and DRM are not mainstream political issues and, most likely, will never be mainstream. That is, elections will not be decided by candidates' stance on this single issue. It just isn't that important to most people.Before someone launches a derogatory rant about the "stupidity" of the American voter, ask yourself why someone with two kids and a mortgage should worry more about copying CD's than about taxes, schools, roads, police protection, etc.
A more direct analogy would have Congress approving federal funds for libraries that was conditional upon the libraries not stocking certain books, since that is the point at issue here
I wouldn't support that legislation, but I do support the use of conditional federal funding to ensure that states carry out the expressed will of the people, as represented in Congress. That's a potent, accepted and Constitutional means of ensuring the states abide by the law.
As for a web site creator being able to speak only to people who own their own computers: His free speech remains protected. No restrictions have been placed on him regarding what he posts on his site. Some people can't afford TV's or radios. That is not viewed as limiting the free speech of people who appear on radio and TV. Some people choose not to read newspapers. That is not viewed as limiting the free speech of journalists. I may not read Slashdot tomorrow. That does not limit the free speech of anyone posting to it.
>> ...any issue for which it would be unconsitutional to pass a law.
If this issue becomes that important to enough people, someone will deliberately violate the law i order to get it into the court system for constitutional review. Eventually, it might work its way to the Supreme Court.
In this case, it is not exclusively the library's business. This is about use of federal funds given to libraries. If they want the money, they have to take it with all strings attached. If people don't like that, they can use the political process to alter the legislation.
In any case, it doens't negate my point: free speech does not include compulsory listening or reading.
I question the notion that the first amendment's protection of your right to free speech also encompasses my obligation to listen to you. Protection of a pornographer's right to free speech does not encompass putting minors in a position where they have access to that pornographer's products. If a library blocks access to a website, that website remains freely available elsewhere. The site's authors have lost no rights. It is directly analogous to a library deciding not to stock a particular book. The free speech rights of the author are not violated by that decision because those rights do not include compelling someone to purchase the book against their will.
Well, one reason to lure them to the States would be a certain lack of confidence in the Russians' ability or willingness to arrest and extradite the pair.
BTW, luring criminals that way isn't "dirty". As far as I knw, it's fairly common. I've read of local police forces doing something similar to herd together folks who have skipped out on their child support payments.
Voting software needs to work and be secure. Whether or not it's closed source ot open source is not important.
In principal, you could argue that the public has a right to see the code itself, but, in reality, the public wouldn't know what it was looking at. Just as the public has no choice but to trust "experts" about the closed voting code, the public would have to trust "experts" about open voting code.
You are a liar who deliberately misrepresents the case.. Typical of most of the ill-educated unthinking non-entities who post to/. these days.
I have indicated no course of action. I've asserted that I don't support private ownership of guns and that the AU gov't has a right to block access to sites they believe are engaged in or inciting crimiinal activity.
That's it. You don't like what I'm saying, so, lacking any apparent intellect or sense of integrity that might, just might, allow you to offer a coherent rebuttal, you resort to the usual techinque of losers: slander and insult.
Thanks for proving my point. Go stamp your dirty feet somewhere else.
Who's talking about blocking internal sites? If the AU gov't wants to block eternal websites, radio stations, or whatever, that plan/engage in criminal acts or communicate with/encourage others in Australia to do the same, that's OK with me. Seems to be a legitimate function of a government.
Point One: If someone alters their life and their behavior patterns because other people own guns and they fear for their safety, that person's freedom has been abridged. To think that we should all own guns to protect ourselves from each other is to imagine that all those John Wayne movies weren't fiction.
Point Two: People are responsibile for their actions. You join the NRA and pay your dues so it can lobby against gun control and I'll hold you responsibile for the presence of guns. The NRA and its members have successfully lobbied to defeat and weaken gun control legislation for decades. Rather than rant vacuous nonsense about silly things like the RIAA, the/. crowd ought to pull its collective head out of the dark place where it lives and start ranting about really evil lobbyists. Everytime someone is shot with a weapon that would be outlawed except for the NRA, that organization and its member share in the responsibility.
Funny how a post expressing a firm conviction about a controversial subject brings out the true colors of the pro-gun cowboys. You all remind me of 5-year old brats who throw tantrums when someone takes away your toys.
>> How is an AU citizen to know if a site banned by government advocates riot and revolution, or just a political position that the government doesn't want its citizens discussing?
They don't get to know. If they don't like it, they can change the government.
Hate to break it to you, but our forefathers were wrong abut this one. They lived in a rural society with a population of around 3 million. Times have changed.
Guns and violence don't protect anyone's freedom and security. All they do is make people insecure and afraid to go about their lives. In my book, that's means less freedom.
You, my friend, are deliverately reducing the argument to absurdity because you can't think of anything else. Typical.
You and all your buddies here think the Internet is some kind of special place that exists apart from the law and apart from the purview of governments. It isn't. The Internet is just another medium, like TV, radio, and newspapers. If you park a radio transmitter off shore and start broadcasting guidance on fomenting riot and revolution, do you seriously expect the government to leave you alone? Why should web sites be treated differently?
Don't put words in my mouth. I draw the line at anything made for the express purpose of being used as a weapon. Baseball bats and tableware don't count.
I'm not willing to trade my freedom for security, but your tossing around that slogan marks you as just one more unthinking parrot.
Listen, my freedom is reduced if my security is reduced. Ownership and use of guns by the public reduces both my security and my freedom.
As for the NRA, it is hard for me to imagine any legal organization that bears greater responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. If you're an NRA member, then you share that guilt and that responsibility.
The government has an obligation to prevent crime and to prosecute criminals. It is as illegal to use the Internet to plan a crime as it is to use any other medium to plot the same crime.
>> I'd rather risk having a family member kill me in a moment of rage than being completely and utterly defenseless against criminals, the criminally insane, and the government.
And I'd rather do anything I could to keep guns away from anyone -- like you -- who thinks their "right" to own a gun takes precedence over tens of thousands of lives.
Slashdot Mirror
>> This is equivelent of being arrested for credit card fraud because you paid your credit card bill late.
Nope. It's equivalent to tricking the credit card company into adding a few zeroes to your limit and racking up bills of $250,000 and then not paying the bill.
The Internet isn't some kind of place that exists apart from the laws and regulations that govern us all.
The Delta 4 is a new vehicle, with a core component using the first new rocket engine in the U.S. fleet since the Shuttle was designed in the '70's. It has about as much in common with earlier Delta's as Lockheed's Atlas 5 has in common with the vehicle that put the Mercury astronauts in orbit.
>> ...much of the mindless dreck being sold by the RIAA is sold on shiny discs with one or two decent tunes...songs they'll soon grow tired of anyway.
Why do people continue to buy CD's by musicians they already know they don't like? If you buy a CD that's crap, why on Earth would you want to spend more money (or more time copying) the next CD by the same folks? Maybe there is just one track that will hold you interest for a day or so. So what? No one is forcing you to buy the thing? If you want it that bad, get it, but don't pretend you didn't know the other tracks were sewage.
I mean, I already know I don't like boiled cabbage, so I don't keep stocking up on cabbage just in case it starts to taste good.
The American space program has, literally, been going in circles for the last 30 years. It desperately needs someplace to go. Now, it looks like NASA is going to keep the shuttle flying for another decade or so, and pull out the old DynaSoar blueprints for a re-do. And where will it go? Well, around in circles for a few days when it ferries new crew members up to the space station.
But, building the capability to send people to investigate and deal with an asteriod or comet that has Earth in its sights would give NASA a place to go. If we don't have the courage to develop an interplanetary capability to ward off armageddon, maybe we don't deserve to survive.
Too bad, that.
You may be able to "educate" some folks, but very, very few people let luxury issues determine the way they vote. And that's what this is: a luxury issue. No one needs to buy CD's, no one needs to watch the latest Harry Potter movie. People with families to support and bills to pay care about the price of groceries a lot more than they do about whether or not they can copy a CD.
Many products disappear because no one wants them. For starters, the Edsel, New Coke, IBM's PS2 line and Microsoft Bob.
The DMCA and DRM are not mainstream political issues and, most likely, will never be mainstream. That is, elections will not be decided by candidates' stance on this single issue. It just isn't that important to most people.Before someone launches a derogatory rant about the "stupidity" of the American voter, ask yourself why someone with two kids and a mortgage should worry more about copying CD's than about taxes, schools, roads, police protection, etc.
A more direct analogy would have Congress approving federal funds for libraries that was conditional upon the libraries not stocking certain books, since that is the point at issue here
I wouldn't support that legislation, but I do support the use of conditional federal funding to ensure that states carry out the expressed will of the people, as represented in Congress. That's a potent, accepted and Constitutional means of ensuring the states abide by the law.
As for a web site creator being able to speak only to people who own their own computers: His free speech remains protected. No restrictions have been placed on him regarding what he posts on his site. Some people can't afford TV's or radios. That is not viewed as limiting the free speech of people who appear on radio and TV. Some people choose not to read newspapers. That is not viewed as limiting the free speech of journalists. I may not read Slashdot tomorrow. That does not limit the free speech of anyone posting to it.
>> ...any issue for which it would be unconsitutional to pass a law.
If this issue becomes that important to enough people, someone will deliberately violate the law i order to get it into the court system for constitutional review. Eventually, it might work its way to the Supreme Court.
In this case, it is not exclusively the library's business. This is about use of federal funds given to libraries. If they want the money, they have to take it with all strings attached. If people don't like that, they can use the political process to alter the legislation.
In any case, it doens't negate my point: free speech does not include compulsory listening or reading.
I question the notion that the first amendment's protection of your right to free speech also encompasses my obligation to listen to you. Protection of a pornographer's right to free speech does not encompass putting minors in a position where they have access to that pornographer's products. If a library blocks access to a website, that website remains freely available elsewhere. The site's authors have lost no rights. It is directly analogous to a library deciding not to stock a particular book. The free speech rights of the author are not violated by that decision because those rights do not include compelling someone to purchase the book against their will.
Well, one reason to lure them to the States would be a certain lack of confidence in the Russians' ability or willingness to arrest and extradite the pair.
BTW, luring criminals that way isn't "dirty". As far as I knw, it's fairly common. I've read of local police forces doing something similar to herd together folks who have skipped out on their child support payments.
Voting software needs to work and be secure. Whether or not it's closed source ot open source is not important.
In principal, you could argue that the public has a right to see the code itself, but, in reality, the public wouldn't know what it was looking at. Just as the public has no choice but to trust "experts" about the closed voting code, the public would have to trust "experts" about open voting code.
You are a liar who deliberately misrepresents the case.. Typical of most of the ill-educated unthinking non-entities who post to /. these days.
I have indicated no course of action. I've asserted that I don't support private ownership of guns and that the AU gov't has a right to block access to sites they believe are engaged in or inciting crimiinal activity.
That's it. You don't like what I'm saying, so, lacking any apparent intellect or sense of integrity that might, just might, allow you to offer a coherent rebuttal, you resort to the usual techinque of losers: slander and insult.
Thanks for proving my point. Go stamp your dirty feet somewhere else.
Who's talking about blocking internal sites? If the AU gov't wants to block eternal websites, radio stations, or whatever, that plan/engage in criminal acts or communicate with/encourage others in Australia to do the same, that's OK with me. Seems to be a legitimate function of a government.
Again, criminal speech is not protected.
You are a damn cowboy and a loon, aren't you? Where'd you park your horse? Hope it was somewhere out of sight, so the black helicopters won't find it.
Point One: If someone alters their life and their behavior patterns because other people own guns and they fear for their safety, that person's freedom has been abridged. To think that we should all own guns to protect ourselves from each other is to imagine that all those John Wayne movies weren't fiction.
/. crowd ought to pull its collective head out of the dark place where it lives and start ranting about really evil lobbyists. Everytime someone is shot with a weapon that would be outlawed except for the NRA, that organization and its member share in the responsibility.
Point Two: People are responsibile for their actions. You join the NRA and pay your dues so it can lobby against gun control and I'll hold you responsibile for the presence of guns. The NRA and its members have successfully lobbied to defeat and weaken gun control legislation for decades. Rather than rant vacuous nonsense about silly things like the RIAA, the
Funny how a post expressing a firm conviction about a controversial subject brings out the true colors of the pro-gun cowboys. You all remind me of 5-year old brats who throw tantrums when someone takes away your toys.
>> How is an AU citizen to know if a site banned by government advocates riot and revolution, or just a political position that the government doesn't want its citizens discussing?
They don't get to know. If they don't like it, they can change the government.
Hate to break it to you, but our forefathers were wrong abut this one. They lived in a rural society with a population of around 3 million. Times have changed.
Guns and violence don't protect anyone's freedom and security. All they do is make people insecure and afraid to go about their lives. In my book, that's means less freedom.
You, my friend, are deliverately reducing the argument to absurdity because you can't think of anything else. Typical.
You and all your buddies here think the Internet is some kind of special place that exists apart from the law and apart from the purview of governments. It isn't. The Internet is just another medium, like TV, radio, and newspapers. If you park a radio transmitter off shore and start broadcasting guidance on fomenting riot and revolution, do you seriously expect the government to leave you alone? Why should web sites be treated differently?
Your response is the typical blithering brain-dead nonsense that passes for thought these days.
Guns are weapons, designed to kill. You have no right to own one.
Don't put words in my mouth. I draw the line at anything made for the express purpose of being used as a weapon. Baseball bats and tableware don't count.
I'm not willing to trade my freedom for security, but your tossing around that slogan marks you as just one more unthinking parrot.
Listen, my freedom is reduced if my security is reduced. Ownership and use of guns by the public reduces both my security and my freedom.
As for the NRA, it is hard for me to imagine any legal organization that bears greater responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. If you're an NRA member, then you share that guilt and that responsibility.
The government has an obligation to prevent crime and to prosecute criminals. It is as illegal to use the Internet to plan a crime as it is to use any other medium to plot the same crime.
>> I'd rather risk having a family member kill me in a moment of rage than being completely and utterly defenseless against criminals, the criminally insane, and the government.
And I'd rather do anything I could to keep guns away from anyone -- like you -- who thinks their "right" to own a gun takes precedence over tens of thousands of lives.