Yes but you will lose the nice interface of iTunes. I have used xmms for years, and when I saw iTunes in pictures etc I didn't think it could be so great - but it is. I'll never go back to xmms et al. iTunes is just so much better to use, especially v3.0 with the dynamic playlists and all...
I mean if xmms works for you, great; but I'd much rather have iTunes with ogg support.
The weird thing is that to view the pages, your browser has to download them; commercial use in my eyes would definitely include ticket booking by a corporate customer.
This eula is a load of crap.
I propose that all slashdot users go to the site and click "I do not accept". That's a great way to tell them what we think, plus it looks like you get to their functional site anyway.
Actually, this is Europe, so I like to think it does not boil down to money.
Anyway, your analogy is flawed since there was no "door" on the webserver. A better analogy would be for you to put $1000 under a loose brick at a street corner. Someone comes along, knocks over the brick, finds $1000 and you accuse him of stealing.
Yeah but you also know this company has no clue what they talk about (technically), cannot protect their data at all, and last but not least they DO engage in bogus cout cases.
Now I don't know about you, but I would not want to deal with such a company.
Yes, actually they are. Nazis in Germany are jailed for expressing their opinions.
Not really. They get jailed for glorifying the third reich, or for denying the holocaust actually happened. Otherwise I wager that most of them get thrown in jail for pession of weapons or other such acts. I have no statistics at hand.
If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us
I was following your example. As for biological proof, it should be easy enough to make. The big question is, are cows self aware, and where do we draw the line? Personally, I'd say a 6 weeks old fetus / collection of cells is much less a living being than a cow.
But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.
Actually, all humans have the right to live, it's in the Human Rights that I am sure pretty much every nation has ratified (well maybe with some exceptions). Now, living up to these ideals is an entirely different thing.
Now, to draw the circle back to the abortion doctors: It could be argued that, under the law of a nation, a person revokes his "right to live" by committing some horrible deed. Murder, whatever. In a democratic nation, this is the will "of the people". Where abortion is legal, and doctors perform abortion, they do not commit anything unacceptable, but people threatening (or trying) to kill these doctors definitely do.
You see, you don't even have to bring philosophy into it. The social norm is that abortion is okay, and those who disagree can and should make their points, but once they use violence, they disqualify themselves from the discussion.
Note also that the government has the task of protecting its people, and that includes said doctors. So shutting down a threat to society - websites that condone random violence - is totally acceptable. Why should it be okay to say "this person has to be killed" but not to actually go ahead and kill him? It's not even said in the heat of the moment. If we allow such things we might just as well get rid of governments altogether and live in anarchy. I seriously doubt that this would be an improvement.
Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.
Now, if this society you propose does in fact believe that bovines are people then yes they are within their right to stop people from calling to murder them. Now, if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people, then no they should not jail me but rethink their laws.
Big difference: It's a huge moral/ethical/philosphical question when an unborn baby stops being a lump of cells and starts to be a human being. In France, for example, I think that point is defined as 12 weeks, not sure about other countries.
But no-one can argue that an abortion doctor is a human being.
Speaking your mind on the subject == right Advocating murder of an individual == wrong
That is the whole point, that kind of site brings personal danger to people who do nothing wrong and who just happen to disagree with your personal code of ethics. If you do not like it, change the laws. In any democratic nation (Germany 1994 was not), laws represent the morals of the people (yes, not quite, there is at least a delay while legislation catches up, but the principle is a sound one).
The whole point behind having laws is to escape anarchy. Laws set a common standard which people ought to follow. If they don't, society eventually breaks down.
So, organize campaigns, write your congressmen, whatever works in America. But trying to get abortion doctors to stop their practices by advocating murder of them is, as tired as I am of the word, terrorism. Sorry, but you have to face that truth.
I have not seen the sites in question; however, I assume they have to be radical enough to be grouped in with nazi sites.
On principle, I still disagree with you. Even if the site is not about killing, it can be illegal enough to ban it. Consider libel/slander: You can NOT say ANYTHING you want. If I publish an article in a paper making untrue claims about you, then I am sure you'd appreciate the article pulled at the very least.
Bovines are not people. Now, a case could be made that cows at least feel pain, so should not be killed and eaten; but then there is the problem that some people claim plants can feel pain as well. Whatcha gonna eat then?
If there are reasons to ban the eating of meat that compare the reasons why you should not kill people - the shocking revelations that cows have achieved sentience - then yeah you should treat them the same.
Sorry, but I am afraid until then you have no point.
Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.
I agree that it's a problematic issue. Note that freedom of the press is not the same as freedom of speech, by the way. You can report all you want about Nazis who want to gas jews, but as soon as you advocate it yourself, then you're in deep trouble, and in my humble opinion rightfully so.
No religion gets away with MURDER here in Europe, what the hell are you talking about? Give some sources, please.
Also, the part about Scientology not being a religion: It was deemed a corporation here in Germany, ie. an organization whose goal is profit. Scientology is (last time I heard about this case) also under surveillance by the german secret service on the grounds that there is suspcion that they are anti-democratic. Considering what I hear about them on/. etc, I would tend to agree that they probably have criminal tendencies.
When I mirrored Project Gutenberg, I litterally gave away thousands of books, mostly to eastern Europe. I don't have exact numbers in my head anymore, but it was in the 100s of K downloads (number of files). Personally, I have read many books published by project gutenberg on my PalmIIIx on trains and airplanes.
The biggest Threat to Project Gutenberg is the extension of copyright laws. A lot of famous and interesting works ought to be copyright-free by now, but the constant extensions to copyright laws prevent them from entering the public domain. This is really a pity.Useable (used) PCs can be had for as little as $30. Combined with free software and free books, this could be a great tool for underpriviliged people and countries to "catch up" a little.
I am not sure about the laws in the US, but here in Germany, it might even be illegal. There are certain cases when it can be done. I work for a large corporation; practice here is that we (as the administrators of the email systems) may NEVER access any user's mail except in two cases:
a) The user himself okay's the access (in writing) b) The superior of the user can request access to business documents in the user's mailbox, but has to get approval from the "Betriebsrat" (Babelfish translates it as work council; basically, it is the employee's representatives in the corporation).
Basically, here eMail DOES fall under the same laws as any other kind of mail, and is covered by the same rules of secrecy etc. Yes, we all know that there are differences, but I think it is a good way to handle it.
Now, about your specific case: I think you acted correctly; however, I think the boss had a valid request. I would've handled like this: Have him put the request in writing (including a clause he takes full responsibility), then have someone neutral around to witness that you did not access any email except the one in question. Do not look at any of the other mails, just access the index, and delete the mail in question. If the company has a lawyer, get his opinion on the matter. Also, to be prepared for the next time this kind of thing happens, you might want to read up on relevant laws, and/or suggest to your employers to create a written policy about such issues.
Paying for someone else's problem is the ENTIRE idea of an insurance. You accept a small financial loss to guard against the risk of a huge one. Everybody pools the small amounts together so that the few who do get unlucky are covered.
I surely hope that any "low risk patients" who'd have to pay less actually also get less treatment when they do have a heart attack (to use your example). Afterall, they did not pay for it. And before you use this comparison: Genetic makeup and bungee jumping (for instance) are not the same. While both does not mean that you will actually come to harm, the later is a lifestyle choice. It's a risk you willingly take, so you have to pay a higher premium for the added risk.
Discrimination based on genetic make-up is the high-tech version of racism. You cannot choose your color of skin (Michael Jackson being the exception that proves the rule) just as you cannot pick your genetic sequences.
"Join the army, see the world, meet interesting people... and kill them."
Or something like that.:)
I don't know about your guys, but the geeks I know are not really fit for military service (and I don't necessarily mean physical condition.)
Also, as a side note, I have a buddy in the US Army and he very rarely gets to see anything of the countries he is in that a normal person would call interesting. Words like "sand", "mud", "dirt" etc are most commonly used; and I am sure the the guy who asked wants to see mud all over the world.
Well the problem with that is that you end up either having a "grey" market of imports, or a region code type system. Somehow, that does not really strike me as being any better.
Then again, who would WANT a malaysian-only (language) version of windows 2000 in the US? not too many I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but you will lose the nice interface of iTunes. I have used xmms for years, and when I saw iTunes in pictures etc I didn't think it could be so great - but it is. I'll never go back to xmms et al. iTunes is just so much better to use, especially v3.0 with the dynamic playlists and all...
I mean if xmms works for you, great; but I'd much rather have iTunes with ogg support.
The weird thing is that to view the pages, your browser has to download them; commercial use in my eyes would definitely include ticket booking by a corporate customer.
This eula is a load of crap.
I propose that all slashdot users go to the site and click "I do not accept". That's a great way to tell them what we think, plus it looks like you get to their functional site anyway.
"III. Endless Entertainment"
Does this mean they plan to combine Dr. Robot and realdoll? Now that would be a hit.
Anything that reduces the IM clutter is good in my book.
Actually, this is Europe, so I like to think it does not boil down to money.
Anyway, your analogy is flawed since there was no "door" on the webserver. A better analogy would be for you to put $1000 under a loose brick at a street corner. Someone comes along, knocks over the brick, finds $1000 and you accuse him of stealing.
I think not.
Yes. :-)
Yeah but you also know this company has no clue what they talk about (technically), cannot protect their data at all, and last but not least they DO engage in bogus cout cases.
Now I don't know about you, but I would not want to deal with such a company.
It could have easily been protected by .htaccess or whatever. So, they have no case. Let's hope Reuters won't budge, and the judge will have a clue.
Not really. They get jailed for glorifying the third reich, or for denying the holocaust actually happened. Otherwise I wager that most of them get thrown in jail for pession of weapons or other such acts. I have no statistics at hand.
If you have proof that bovines aren't people, I'd hope you share it with us
I was following your example. As for biological proof, it should be easy enough to make. The big question is, are cows self aware, and where do we draw the line? Personally, I'd say a 6 weeks old fetus / collection of cells is much less a living being than a cow.
But even being a person is not sufficent to get you the right to live in all places; some countries still practice the death penalty.
Actually, all humans have the right to live, it's in the Human Rights that I am sure pretty much every nation has ratified (well maybe with some exceptions). Now, living up to these ideals is an entirely different thing.
Now, to draw the circle back to the abortion doctors: It could be argued that, under the law of a nation, a person revokes his "right to live" by committing some horrible deed. Murder, whatever. In a democratic nation, this is the will "of the people". Where abortion is legal, and doctors perform abortion, they do not commit anything unacceptable, but people threatening (or trying) to kill these doctors definitely do.
You see, you don't even have to bring philosophy into it. The social norm is that abortion is okay, and those who disagree can and should make their points, but once they use violence, they disqualify themselves from the discussion.
Note also that the government has the task of protecting its people, and that includes said doctors. So shutting down a threat to society - websites that condone random violence - is totally acceptable. Why should it be okay to say "this person has to be killed" but not to actually go ahead and kill him? It's not even said in the heat of the moment. If we allow such things we might just as well get rid of governments altogether and live in anarchy. I seriously doubt that this would be an improvement.
That's probably coz they're sending the spam MY way instead. (Seen a rise of about 2-3 spams that get through my rbls a day, vs. zero before.)
Mind you, no-one is being jailed for voicing their opinion.
Now, if this society you propose does in fact believe that bovines are people then yes they are within their right to stop people from calling to murder them. Now, if I had proof that bovines afterall are not people, then no they should not jail me but rethink their laws.
Good luck in proving that doctors are not people.
Big difference: It's a huge moral/ethical/philosphical question when an unborn baby stops being a lump of cells and starts to be a human being. In France, for example, I think that point is defined as 12 weeks, not sure about other countries.
But no-one can argue that an abortion doctor is a human being.
Speaking your mind on the subject == right
Advocating murder of an individual == wrong
That is the whole point, that kind of site brings personal danger to people who do nothing wrong and who just happen to disagree with your personal code of ethics. If you do not like it, change the laws. In any democratic nation (Germany 1994 was not), laws represent the morals of the people (yes, not quite, there is at least a delay while legislation catches up, but the principle is a sound one).
The whole point behind having laws is to escape anarchy. Laws set a common standard which people ought to follow. If they don't, society eventually breaks down.
So, organize campaigns, write your congressmen, whatever works in America. But trying to get abortion doctors to stop their practices by advocating murder of them is, as tired as I am of the word, terrorism. Sorry, but you have to face that truth.
I have not seen the sites in question; however, I assume they have to be radical enough to be grouped in with nazi sites.
On principle, I still disagree with you. Even if the site is not about killing, it can be illegal enough to ban it. Consider libel/slander: You can NOT say ANYTHING you want. If I publish an article in a paper making untrue claims about you, then I am sure you'd appreciate the article pulled at the very least.
Bovines are not people. Now, a case could be made that cows at least feel pain, so should not be killed and eaten; but then there is the problem that some people claim plants can feel pain as well. Whatcha gonna eat then?
If there are reasons to ban the eating of meat that compare the reasons why you should not kill people - the shocking revelations that cows have achieved sentience - then yeah you should treat them the same.
Sorry, but I am afraid until then you have no point.
Remember there are anti-abortion sites that advocate murder of doctors who perform abortions.
Yeah well freedom of speech ends where you step on other people's rights, like those anti-abortion sites inciting people to kill abortion doctors or Nazis who want to gas the jews.
I agree that it's a problematic issue. Note that freedom of the press is not the same as freedom of speech, by the way. You can report all you want about Nazis who want to gas jews, but as soon as you advocate it yourself, then you're in deep trouble, and in my humble opinion rightfully so.
No religion gets away with MURDER here in Europe, what the hell are you talking about? Give some sources, please.
/. etc, I would tend to agree that they probably have criminal tendencies.
Also, the part about Scientology not being a religion: It was deemed a corporation here in Germany, ie. an organization whose goal is profit. Scientology is (last time I heard about this case) also under surveillance by the german secret service on the grounds that there is suspcion that they are anti-democratic. Considering what I hear about them on
Scientology is bad mojo. Stay clear.
I think you are dead on. Plus: a) XML is a great buzzword; b) it makes MS *seem* more "open" and "standards compliant".
When I mirrored Project Gutenberg, I litterally gave away thousands of books, mostly to eastern Europe. I don't have exact numbers in my head anymore, but it was in the 100s of K downloads (number of files). Personally, I have read many books published by project gutenberg on my PalmIIIx on trains and airplanes.
The biggest Threat to Project Gutenberg is the extension of copyright laws. A lot of famous and interesting works ought to be copyright-free by now, but the constant extensions to copyright laws prevent them from entering the public domain. This is really a pity.Useable (used) PCs can be had for as little as $30. Combined with free software and free books, this could be a great tool for underpriviliged people and countries to "catch up" a little.
We need more free information, damnit.
I am not sure about the laws in the US, but here in Germany, it might even be illegal. There are certain cases when it can be done. I work for a large corporation; practice here is that we (as the administrators of the email systems) may NEVER access any user's mail except in two cases:
a) The user himself okay's the access (in writing)
b) The superior of the user can request access to business documents in the user's mailbox, but has to get approval from the "Betriebsrat" (Babelfish translates it as work council; basically, it is the employee's representatives in the corporation).
Basically, here eMail DOES fall under the same laws as any other kind of mail, and is covered by the same rules of secrecy etc. Yes, we all know that there are differences, but I think it is a good way to handle it.
Now, about your specific case: I think you acted correctly; however, I think the boss had a valid request. I would've handled like this: Have him put the request in writing (including a clause he takes full responsibility), then have someone neutral around to witness that you did not access any email except the one in question. Do not look at any of the other mails, just access the index, and delete the mail in question.
If the company has a lawyer, get his opinion on the matter. Also, to be prepared for the next time this kind of thing happens, you might want to read up on relevant laws, and/or suggest to your employers to create a written policy about such issues.
Paying for someone else's problem is the ENTIRE idea of an insurance. You accept a small financial loss to guard against the risk of a huge one. Everybody pools the small amounts together so that the few who do get unlucky are covered.
I surely hope that any "low risk patients" who'd have to pay less actually also get less treatment when they do have a heart attack (to use your example). Afterall, they did not pay for it.
And before you use this comparison: Genetic makeup and bungee jumping (for instance) are not the same. While both does not mean that you will actually come to harm, the later is a lifestyle choice. It's a risk you willingly take, so you have to pay a higher premium for the added risk.
Discrimination based on genetic make-up is the high-tech version of racism. You cannot choose your color of skin (Michael Jackson being the exception that proves the rule) just as you cannot pick your genetic sequences.
...is that she got caught.
"Join the army, see the world, meet interesting people... and kill them."
:)
Or something like that.
I don't know about your guys, but the geeks I know are not really fit for military service (and I don't necessarily mean physical condition.)
Also, as a side note, I have a buddy in the US Army and he very rarely gets to see anything of the countries he is in that a normal person would call interesting. Words like "sand", "mud", "dirt" etc are most commonly used; and I am sure the the guy who asked wants to see mud all over the world.
Well the problem with that is that you end up either having a "grey" market of imports, or a region code type system. Somehow, that does not really strike me as being any better.
Then again, who would WANT a malaysian-only (language) version of windows 2000 in the US? not too many I guess.