We're not even talking about copying others works here. We're talking about providing a how-to. That is clearly free speech which is being suppressed by the Dutch government.
It did? I think we just changed aristocracies. Wealth distribution in the middle ages was pretty similar to the inequality we see today. And back then serfs spent less of their time working for their lords than we do today. They actually got to keep a higher percentage of their production than wage slaves do today.
The feudal system didn't fail, it just modernized.
This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though. If it were, then all physical cylinder locks or password security could also be considered "security through obscurity".
All physical locks ARE examples of security through obscurity. You can recreate the key be examining the lock. You can't do that with public key cryptography. That's the big difference that the "security through obscurity" meme is supposed to highlight.
The point in this case is that the public had no means of guessing or finding the URL other than trying every possible combination. GeenStijl provided the public with the right combination (the key or password if you will) and this is where their publication further infringes on the copyright.
GeenStijl made a discovery which they communicated to the public. Free speech. This ruling is barbaric.
You don't really mean zero. There is a fundamental minimum amount of energy it takes to do a calculation. When Intel says "almost zero energy computing" how far over this limit are they actually talking about? 101% of the Landauer limit? 200%? 1000%?
Then let people express how they don't enjoy some types of sexual touch
We're talking about non-sexual touch here. If you're so insecure that you have to find a female dermatologist to check out a mole on your sack, then you're homophobic. Same goes for the TSA.
Of course, the TSA has no legitimate justification to touch your junk, but that's a problem whether your assailant is male or female.
As a heterosexual male I object to being nonconsentually groped in a non-sexual manner by anyone, male or female. If you're a gorgeous female supermodel great, you can jerk me off if you want. But you can't check my scrotum for weapons. That's unbelievably objectionable, no matter who is doing it.
The TSA always seems so proud that they offer same-sex inspectors for pat-downs. As a heterosexual male, that fact alone makes me pretty averse to being patted down
I think you mean "As a homophobic male". There's a difference.
Only if you assume that the few in power are morally better than the majority. But since they're drawn from the same pool, and the process of obtaining power selects against the wise and the kind, you can be assured that they are not.
We do not give power to the majority because the majority is wise. We do so to dilute the influence of individual corruption. If a king rules in a way that only benefits the king, you can be assured that most of his subjects are suffering. If the majority rules in a way that only benefits the majority, then at least 50% of the people are happy.
Yes, they were readily available for public inspection in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".
This is a problem with Ubuntu on the desktop, not Linux. Install Debian and whatever window manager you want and you have a perfectly useable Linux desktop.
Bullying has become another bogeyman authorities will use to remove our rights. Yeah, it sucks to get called names, but it sucks worse to go to jail because of something you said. Clearly a government with the power to imprison people based on speech is a greater danger than a bully who talks big. The government itself is the bully you should be worried about, and they don't stop at name calling, they destroy your life.
Reevaluate your priorities, they're fucked to hell. I would rather live in a country where anyone can say anything they want about anyone than one where a single person is taken from their home and family because of something they said. They're just words for fucks sake.
This does not inhibit your speech. You can still make false and misleading claims against other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for what you say.
Like the GP post said, you can restate this argument to claim that you have "freedom of murder" which you clearly don't. Since you missed it the first time:
"This does not inhibit your killing. You can still kill other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for people you kill."
Now, are you going to argue that you have freedom to kill people in Australia? Of course not. If the government can "hold you accountable" you area clearly not free to do something.
So you honestly expect to be able to hurt other people and then hide behind "MAH FREEDOMZ(TM)" when they want to harm you back.
If the speech was factual, absolutely. The fact that you question this shows that you don't even understand what freedom of speech really is.
Not if you ask a muslim. If you believe in Islam, you believe that Mohammed existed, was a good guy, and fucked a 9 year old. That means every follower of Islam must condone pedophilia to at least some extent.
Christians have it somewhat easier because there are two books. The vengeful god is mostly from the old testament, and Jesus brought a new covenant after which god is all lovey dovey. Now a lot of christians fuck it up by trying to apply rules from the old book to people today, but at least it's possible for a christian to believe what's in the bible without condoning evil.
So I'm not seeing the double standard. Moderate christians have a way to rationalize away the evil done in their holy book. Do moderate muslims have a similar argument? "Mohammed was fictional" doesn't count, because if you believe that then you are not a muslim.
Assuming that A) Mohammed was a real person, and B) he was, by period standards, a pedophile, which was my point.
Period standards nothing. If you fuck a 9 year old you're a pedophile.
One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...
It's hardly a fair comparison, as there are no sources that believers claim to be true that would imply that Jesus was a pedophile. Aisha's deflowering at the age of 9 is reported in the Hadith, which believers have to accept as true. Any follower of Islam must reconcile his pedophilia with their belief that Muhammed was a good man, a problem that does not affect Christianity.
It's true that the general public has little use for general purpose computing. But it is still the case that PCs are general purpose computers, and iOS stuff is not. As iOS style computers become more common (and they will, because as you correctly observe most people don't need GPC), it will become more and more accurate to say that we are living in a post-PC world.
... and the implication is that makes Mohammed (and apparently, by association, every Muslim who ever has or ever will live) a horrible person not worthy of attention, right? That's funny.
It certainly makes him someone we should not look to for moral guidance.
Edgar Allen Poe, Lewis Carroll
Both authors, not moral leaders. If you look to the writings of Poe or Carroll for moral guidance you have serious issues.
Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.
Why should we not have two standards for two different things? Authors of fiction are not moral leaders.
A jewish extremist makes a film ripping on Muhammad
I haven't seen the film in question, so I have to ask how extreme was it really? I've heard that it portrays Mohammed as a war monger and pedophile, but isn't that historically accurate?
In any case, no matter how detestable the content of the film, it's just speech. The responsibility for the deaths here lies entirely on the heads of the people who meet speech with violence.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not even talking about copying others works here. We're talking about providing a how-to. That is clearly free speech which is being suppressed by the Dutch government.
It did? I think we just changed aristocracies. Wealth distribution in the middle ages was pretty similar to the inequality we see today. And back then serfs spent less of their time working for their lords than we do today. They actually got to keep a higher percentage of their production than wage slaves do today.
The feudal system didn't fail, it just modernized.
Nothing huh? I thought so.
Domscheit-Berg is a spook, that's why.
This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though. If it were, then all physical cylinder locks or password security could also be considered "security through obscurity".
All physical locks ARE examples of security through obscurity. You can recreate the key be examining the lock. You can't do that with public key cryptography. That's the big difference that the "security through obscurity" meme is supposed to highlight.
The point in this case is that the public had no means of guessing or finding the URL other than trying every possible combination. GeenStijl provided the public with the right combination (the key or password if you will) and this is where their publication further infringes on the copyright.
GeenStijl made a discovery which they communicated to the public. Free speech. This ruling is barbaric.
Fuck you and your condescending attitude. Free speech is more important than copyright. Period.
Being *averse* to having a guy check a mole on my sack isn't homophobia.
Yes, yes it is.
You don't really mean zero. There is a fundamental minimum amount of energy it takes to do a calculation. When Intel says "almost zero energy computing" how far over this limit are they actually talking about? 101% of the Landauer limit? 200%? 1000%?
Then let people express how they don't enjoy some types of sexual touch
We're talking about non-sexual touch here. If you're so insecure that you have to find a female dermatologist to check out a mole on your sack, then you're homophobic. Same goes for the TSA.
Of course, the TSA has no legitimate justification to touch your junk, but that's a problem whether your assailant is male or female.
As a heterosexual male I object to being nonconsentually groped in a non-sexual manner by anyone, male or female. If you're a gorgeous female supermodel great, you can jerk me off if you want. But you can't check my scrotum for weapons. That's unbelievably objectionable, no matter who is doing it.
The TSA always seems so proud that they offer same-sex inspectors for pat-downs. As a heterosexual male, that fact alone makes me pretty averse to being patted down
I think you mean "As a homophobic male". There's a difference.
Only if you assume that the few in power are morally better than the majority. But since they're drawn from the same pool, and the process of obtaining power selects against the wise and the kind, you can be assured that they are not.
We do not give power to the majority because the majority is wise. We do so to dilute the influence of individual corruption. If a king rules in a way that only benefits the king, you can be assured that most of his subjects are suffering. If the majority rules in a way that only benefits the majority, then at least 50% of the people are happy.
I am not so cynical or conspiratorial to think that the gubmint has become completely insensitive to the wishes of its polity.
Why not? Convince me that this is anything but wishful thinking. Please.
Yes, they were readily available for public inspection in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".
when your comments are completely ignored?
This is a problem with Ubuntu on the desktop, not Linux. Install Debian and whatever window manager you want and you have a perfectly useable Linux desktop.
Bullying has become another bogeyman authorities will use to remove our rights. Yeah, it sucks to get called names, but it sucks worse to go to jail because of something you said. Clearly a government with the power to imprison people based on speech is a greater danger than a bully who talks big. The government itself is the bully you should be worried about, and they don't stop at name calling, they destroy your life.
Reevaluate your priorities, they're fucked to hell. I would rather live in a country where anyone can say anything they want about anyone than one where a single person is taken from their home and family because of something they said. They're just words for fucks sake.
This does not inhibit your speech. You can still make false and misleading claims against other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for what you say.
Like the GP post said, you can restate this argument to claim that you have "freedom of murder" which you clearly don't. Since you missed it the first time:
"This does not inhibit your killing. You can still kill other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for people you kill."
Now, are you going to argue that you have freedom to kill people in Australia? Of course not. If the government can "hold you accountable" you area clearly not free to do something.
So you honestly expect to be able to hurt other people and then hide behind "MAH FREEDOMZ(TM)" when they want to harm you back.
If the speech was factual, absolutely. The fact that you question this shows that you don't even understand what freedom of speech really is.
Except we're talking about a fictional character.
Not if you ask a muslim. If you believe in Islam, you believe that Mohammed existed, was a good guy, and fucked a 9 year old. That means every follower of Islam must condone pedophilia to at least some extent.
Christians have it somewhat easier because there are two books. The vengeful god is mostly from the old testament, and Jesus brought a new covenant after which god is all lovey dovey. Now a lot of christians fuck it up by trying to apply rules from the old book to people today, but at least it's possible for a christian to believe what's in the bible without condoning evil.
So I'm not seeing the double standard. Moderate christians have a way to rationalize away the evil done in their holy book. Do moderate muslims have a similar argument? "Mohammed was fictional" doesn't count, because if you believe that then you are not a muslim.
Automatic sliding doors.
Assuming that A) Mohammed was a real person, and B) he was, by period standards, a pedophile, which was my point.
Period standards nothing. If you fuck a 9 year old you're a pedophile.
One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...
It's hardly a fair comparison, as there are no sources that believers claim to be true that would imply that Jesus was a pedophile. Aisha's deflowering at the age of 9 is reported in the Hadith, which believers have to accept as true. Any follower of Islam must reconcile his pedophilia with their belief that Muhammed was a good man, a problem that does not affect Christianity.
It's true that the general public has little use for general purpose computing. But it is still the case that PCs are general purpose computers, and iOS stuff is not. As iOS style computers become more common (and they will, because as you correctly observe most people don't need GPC), it will become more and more accurate to say that we are living in a post-PC world.
... and the implication is that makes Mohammed (and apparently, by association, every Muslim who ever has or ever will live) a horrible person not worthy of attention, right? That's funny.
It certainly makes him someone we should not look to for moral guidance.
Edgar Allen Poe, Lewis Carroll
Both authors, not moral leaders. If you look to the writings of Poe or Carroll for moral guidance you have serious issues.
Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.
Why should we not have two standards for two different things? Authors of fiction are not moral leaders.
If you have an iOS development account, it's a general purpose computer. If you don't, it's an appliance.
A jewish extremist makes a film ripping on Muhammad
I haven't seen the film in question, so I have to ask how extreme was it really? I've heard that it portrays Mohammed as a war monger and pedophile, but isn't that historically accurate?
In any case, no matter how detestable the content of the film, it's just speech. The responsibility for the deaths here lies entirely on the heads of the people who meet speech with violence.