...that we can choose Miss America from 50 contestants, but we just can't handle six legitimate candidates for President (who are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the Electoral College) in a debate?
Especially since we seem to be able to handle six Democrats in a primary debate...
Perhaps you've forgotten that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, that the Constitution says that Cobb and Badnarik are valid candidates, that they're both on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, and, as such, they have every right to be up there with Bush and Kerry?
Please mod the parent (-1, Bollocks). I have a Dish 501 and there is NO EXTRA CHARGE WHATSOEVER for the PVR service. The same is true of their newly-released 721 with two receivers and a larger hard drive. My receiver was only about $50 or so more than a non-PVR receiver, and there is no extra charge for the PVR service. I even had my service cut off one time and still could watch everything I had previously recorded.
The thing that pisses me off about it was that last week it didn't run over; the game stopped right at 7:00, but those idiots kept talking for 20 minutes. Guys, when you run over your time, shut the frell up!!!!
On the other hand, it may be that people like me get listed as half a Linux user and half a Windows user. I use Linux at home, but at work I generally don't have a choice and have to use Windows. So, you could argue that the figure is higher based on that.
Not really. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States." IANAL, but it seems to me that this would cover the Attorney General. I know it covers members of the Supreme Court; I also know it doesn't cover members of Congress. Anyone here know for sure?
Exactly. The real enemies are not the MPAA, but the corrupt government they have bought. So I've changed my.sig accordingly, so as not to confuse those slashdotters who seem to be completely incapable of clicking a link...
That wasn't what I was saying. I wasn't saying government should encourage, subsidize, or in any other way support the antivirus companies. I was jsut saying they should stay out of their business, and not place their back-door restrictions on them like they have in the past.
The point is, the companies should have the freedom to find and eliminate any software threat, even ones originating from the government to spy on us.
1: Get out of our way WRT encryption and other secure technologies. We're not terrorists, we just want to keep our personal information secure. Installing "back doors" and other methods may, on the surface, seem like a good idea for national security, but in reality hackers can enter through those as easily as the government.
2: Hold vendors responsible for security holes in their products. Currently, the EULAs prevent someone harmed by a security flaw from seeking liability, even if that security flaw was deliberately programmed into the software as a "feature."
3: Recognize the role of antivirus firms such as McAfee and Symantec in protecting users. They should be unrestricted in their efforts to make and sell software that can protect computer users from harmful files, regardless of the source.
4: Realize that the best way to catch criminals and terrorists is through the use of human intelligence, which history has proven to be much more effective than randomly reading private EMails. Also, human intelligence doesn't involve threatening the liberty of normal, law-abiding Americans like many of the other proposed methods do.
5: This is probably the most important one: Remember the words of Ben Franklin when he said, "They that would give up Essential Liberty in order to obtain Temporary Safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I would also add that, in these cases, you usually don't get the safety you're seeking in the first place.
IANAGeneticist, but my understanding is that insulin for diabetics is produced by injecting human genes into e. coli bacteria. So, aren't we already making human-nonhuman (in this case, bacteria) hybrids?
I just had the image of you with a couple wrenches, screwdrivers, and BF hammer Reverse-Engineering an airplane. How far do you think you would get?
That's funny. But seriously, this would be an intrusion on private property, like if you broke into Microsoft's offices and stole the source code. A better analogy would be the ability to download specs on a Boeing 757 from the Internet.
All along the RIAA has been able to do what they did against mp3.com, Napster, and others because they claimed those services took money away from those poor, starving artists.
Most of us knew all along that they were really protecting the interests of the companies at the artists' expense; now we have firm confirmation.
Most people are willing to support their favorite artists. They buy concert tickets, help with word-of-mouth, buy and wear t-shirts, etc. It's going to be harder now for the RIAA to claim that the consumers are greedy and just want free stuff without giving the artist due compensation.
Hopefully, the government won't fall for it anymore.
I remember reading that he answered this in at a convention recently. His answer was something along the lines of "no one was watching it."
Probably because it followed that godawful "Cleopatra 2525." Starting on a half-hour in timeslots where most other shows are an hour long doesn't do much for your viewership. I loved the show, and tried to watch it, but it was difficult for that very reason.
None of the villains from the cartoon series will be there. But Ben Edlund has full rights to the comic book villains, and one of them--The Red Scare--is in tonight's episode! Edlund has also made noises about trying to cast someone for Paul the Samurai. (No word on any ninjas, though. They're my favorites! "We're a hedge. Move along. Nothing to see here.")
I dunno about the "Spooooon!" battle cry; it just doesn't seem to me that something like that should be copyrightable.
Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines,
This is laughably wrong. RMS made the GPL and the Free Software movement in the early 80s, when Gates was still piddling around with DOS and saying that 640K should be enough for anybody. The actual movement started even earlier; the concept of open source predated commercial software.
In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together. There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL
Gates apparently doesn't know what a "cycle" is. A cycle, by definition, has to link back up again with its origins, in this case, free software. Microsoft breaks the cycle by incorporating open source code into, for example, its TCP/IP stack. The GPL restores the cycle by requiring developers to give their changes back to the community.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
Tell that to Red Hat.
Here's a telling quote from Ballmer:
If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software, it's kind of inconsistent with the goals of most people in the room.
In other words, Microsoft is against freedom in software. Remember, we're talking free speech, not free beer. So all this stuff about "Freedom to Innovate" is nothing more than a thinly veiled apologetic for Microsoft's business practices.
Why should we be glad for this ruling ? It does not further our cause in free speech.. you can't explain things like Sklyarov did but you can evengalize nazi dogma's.. which one is worse for our youth, our FREE world?
It's not about "evangelizing Nazi dogmas;" it's about acknowledging that they have the right to express their views. The idea is that if views that have widespread opposition are protected, freedom will be protected across the board. The irony is that the unpopular speech is protected, but many of our more basic freedoms are still being restricted.
If Yahoo! wants to do business in France, don't they have to abide by their rules?
There's the rub--if you are in France, but connecting to a Yahoo! server in America, are you doing business in America, or France?
America, because you are essentially contacting an American company. It's like ordering from a mail-order catalog. The problem is, this makes it nearly impossible to inforce the French law. Even if they stop Yahoo! France, all one has to do is connect to an American server and purchase away.
Is it just me, or are the moderators getting hypersensitive of late?
It was humor, people. You might also want to get a definition of "irony" from someone other than Alanis Morissette. (And in case you missed it, that was humor, too.)
Maybe, but there's nothing stopping someone in France from accessing the main Yahoo! site and getting the material, so the ruling still wouldn't be effective.
Slashdot Mirror
...that we can choose Miss America from 50 contestants, but we just can't handle six legitimate candidates for President (who are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the Electoral College) in a debate?
Especially since we seem to be able to handle six Democrats in a primary debate...
Perhaps you've forgotten that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, that the Constitution says that Cobb and Badnarik are valid candidates, that they're both on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, and, as such, they have every right to be up there with Bush and Kerry?
Please mod the parent (-1, Bollocks). I have a Dish 501 and there is NO EXTRA CHARGE WHATSOEVER for the PVR service. The same is true of their newly-released 721 with two receivers and a larger hard drive. My receiver was only about $50 or so more than a non-PVR receiver, and there is no extra charge for the PVR service. I even had my service cut off one time and still could watch everything I had previously recorded.
Oh, come on, it was a joke! Admittedly, not a (+5, Funny) joke like it was moderated, but still...
...it just might be able to take the Slashdotting!
The thing that pisses me off about it was that last week it didn't run over; the game stopped right at 7:00, but those idiots kept talking for 20 minutes. Guys, when you run over your time, shut the frell up!!!!
On the other hand, it may be that people like me get listed as half a Linux user and half a Windows user. I use Linux at home, but at work I generally don't have a choice and have to use Windows. So, you could argue that the figure is higher based on that.
Not really. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States." IANAL, but it seems to me that this would cover the Attorney General. I know it covers members of the Supreme Court; I also know it doesn't cover members of Congress. Anyone here know for sure?
Exactly. The real enemies are not the MPAA, but the corrupt government they have bought. So I've changed my .sig accordingly, so as not to confuse those slashdotters who seem to be completely incapable of clicking a link...
What? You mean to tell me this movie was pirated without using DeCSS??? Is that even possible?????
That wasn't what I was saying. I wasn't saying government should encourage, subsidize, or in any other way support the antivirus companies. I was jsut saying they should stay out of their business, and not place their back-door restrictions on them like they have in the past.
The point is, the companies should have the freedom to find and eliminate any software threat, even ones originating from the government to spy on us.
1: Get out of our way WRT encryption and other secure technologies. We're not terrorists, we just want to keep our personal information secure. Installing "back doors" and other methods may, on the surface, seem like a good idea for national security, but in reality hackers can enter through those as easily as the government.
2: Hold vendors responsible for security holes in their products. Currently, the EULAs prevent someone harmed by a security flaw from seeking liability, even if that security flaw was deliberately programmed into the software as a "feature."
3: Recognize the role of antivirus firms such as McAfee and Symantec in protecting users. They should be unrestricted in their efforts to make and sell software that can protect computer users from harmful files, regardless of the source.
4: Realize that the best way to catch criminals and terrorists is through the use of human intelligence, which history has proven to be much more effective than randomly reading private EMails. Also, human intelligence doesn't involve threatening the liberty of normal, law-abiding Americans like many of the other proposed methods do.
5: This is probably the most important one: Remember the words of Ben Franklin when he said, "They that would give up Essential Liberty in order to obtain Temporary Safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I would also add that, in these cases, you usually don't get the safety you're seeking in the first place.
IANAGeneticist, but my understanding is that insulin for diabetics is produced by injecting human genes into e. coli bacteria. So, aren't we already making human-nonhuman (in this case, bacteria) hybrids?
That's funny. But seriously, this would be an intrusion on private property, like if you broke into Microsoft's offices and stole the source code. A better analogy would be the ability to download specs on a Boeing 757 from the Internet.
All along the RIAA has been able to do what they did against mp3.com, Napster, and others because they claimed those services took money away from those poor, starving artists.
Most of us knew all along that they were really protecting the interests of the companies at the artists' expense; now we have firm confirmation.
Most people are willing to support their favorite artists. They buy concert tickets, help with word-of-mouth, buy and wear t-shirts, etc. It's going to be harder now for the RIAA to claim that the consumers are greedy and just want free stuff without giving the artist due compensation.
Hopefully, the government won't fall for it anymore.
I loved you in (among many others) "The Hudsucker Proxy." Any chance of you working with the Coen brothers again?
Probably because it followed that godawful "Cleopatra 2525." Starting on a half-hour in timeslots where most other shows are an hour long doesn't do much for your viewership. I loved the show, and tried to watch it, but it was difficult for that very reason.
The bastard! How unAmerican can you get??? :^/
None of the villains from the cartoon series will be there. But Ben Edlund has full rights to the comic book villains, and one of them--The Red Scare--is in tonight's episode! Edlund has also made noises about trying to cast someone for Paul the Samurai. (No word on any ninjas, though. They're my favorites! "We're a hedge. Move along. Nothing to see here.")
I dunno about the "Spooooon!" battle cry; it just doesn't seem to me that something like that should be copyrightable.
Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines,
This is laughably wrong. RMS made the GPL and the Free Software movement in the early 80s, when Gates was still piddling around with DOS and saying that 640K should be enough for anybody. The actual movement started even earlier; the concept of open source predated commercial software.
In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together. There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL
Gates apparently doesn't know what a "cycle" is. A cycle, by definition, has to link back up again with its origins, in this case, free software. Microsoft breaks the cycle by incorporating open source code into, for example, its TCP/IP stack. The GPL restores the cycle by requiring developers to give their changes back to the community.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
Tell that to Red Hat.
Here's a telling quote from Ballmer:
If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software, it's kind of inconsistent with the goals of most people in the room.
In other words, Microsoft is against freedom in software. Remember, we're talking free speech, not free beer. So all this stuff about "Freedom to Innovate" is nothing more than a thinly veiled apologetic for Microsoft's business practices.
It's not about "evangelizing Nazi dogmas;" it's about acknowledging that they have the right to express their views. The idea is that if views that have widespread opposition are protected, freedom will be protected across the board. The irony is that the unpopular speech is protected, but many of our more basic freedoms are still being restricted.
There's the rub--if you are in France, but connecting to a Yahoo! server in America, are you doing business in America, or France?
America, because you are essentially contacting an American company. It's like ordering from a mail-order catalog. The problem is, this makes it nearly impossible to inforce the French law. Even if they stop Yahoo! France, all one has to do is connect to an American server and purchase away.
Is it just me, or are the moderators getting hypersensitive of late?
It was humor, people. You might also want to get a definition of "irony" from someone other than Alanis Morissette. (And in case you missed it, that was humor, too.)
You can have the freedom to be a racist hate-monger all you want, as long as you don't play DVDs on Linux.
(This message has been brought to you by the US Government, owned and operated by the MPAA, RIAA, et al.)
Maybe, but there's nothing stopping someone in France from accessing the main Yahoo! site and getting the material, so the ruling still wouldn't be effective.