Don't rely on closed source to keep your secrets. Since we can't verify that the Feds haven't pressured Apple into giving them a back door, we have to assume they have. The article here could easily be propaganda encouraging people to use compromised software.
Use something like Jitsi or Retroshare if you care about your privacy. Anything else should be considered the equivalent of standing on the street corner with a megaphone.
Nope, those are just some user created levels. The assets are indeed the whole storyline and stuff, including player models, maps, textures, voices, and music.
I was going to write that, but it's not quite accurate. See the Aaron Swartz case. JSTOR didn't want to press charges, and MIT didn't make their opinion known. It was because Swartz was a political activist that he got the book thrown at him.
Since we're talking about what should be allowed by the justice system, that principle is applicable. If *you* want to treat someone like a pariah because you think they are guilty, go ahead. If you want the government to punish someone, you have to prove them guilty.
You're both right. Sales taxes are regressive, and flat income taxes are regressive. We should have neither. Our tax system should get a greater proportion of taxes from people who can afford to pay a greater proportion of taxes. Those are the people who have benefited the most, so they should pay a larger share.
So are you conceding that the US has a serious inequality problem, or did you just log in to rail against Occupy? I don't really care where we draw the line, an exponential curve has no inflection point, so it's arbitrary. If you want to draw the line at the.01%, I'd be happy to have you on my side fighting against the actual class warfare that is the daily business of Washington.
And whose fault is it if their legal tax liability is "next to nothing"?/i>
It's their fault. Their lobbying money corrupted the government.
I think you will find that most of the hated rich people don't pay "next to nothing". In fact, most of the figures show that those people pay a vastly inordinate amount of the tax bill.
They pay a lower proportion of their wealth than the poor do. The only reason the rich as a group pay a large portion of the total tax bill is because inequality is so extreme.
It is the lowest income people who pay next to nothing, and in some cases, get money back.
As well they should. They haven't benefited much from the way our society is arranged, so they should not shoulder much of the burden. Those who have benefitted the most--the rich--should shoulder most of the burden.
It's worse than if there were no law. In the state of nature, the strong prey on the weak. In the United States of America, the strong prey on the weak with the help of the government.
Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.
You think they don't know this? Believe it or not, politicians are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are not writing this law so it can be applied to every violation of every TOS. They are only going to prosecute violations of the TOS of powerful corporations, and only when it serves the interests of the government. The people who wrote this law want it to be applied arbitrarily and capriciously.
If the Terms of Use include the phrase "you will give the owner of this website a blowjob for every page loaded" will violators be going to jail?
If it serves the interests of the powerful, then yes. Egregious TOS terms will be ignored until it's convenient not to ignore them. They deliberately write laws that can be misinterpreted in order to be able to deliberately misinterpret the law to punish their political opponents. c.f. Aaron Swartz.
So let's be accurate: plead out to a 6 month sentence and avoid trial, or go to trial and face a prosecutor asking for 7 years.
That's what I said.
That choice was to exercise his constitutional rights and face years in prison, or don't exercise his rights and face months in prison. -me
You may still believe that 7 years is too long - that's your prerogative. But Mr. Swartz's constitutional rights were not infringed by anybody during this prosecution.
Whether 7 years is too long is not the issue. The issue is that whether he gets 7 years or 6 months is contingent on whether he exercises his constitutional rights or not.
Increasing the punishment for someone who exercises his rights is a violation of that right. It's no different than charging someone with extra crimes if they exercise their 4th or 5th amendment rights. Do you think people should get extra charges tacked on if they plead the 5th or demand a warrant for a search? I would hope not! Plea bargaining is the exact same thing.
He was offered a chance to plead guilty with a punishment of 6 months.
If he forfeited his right to a trial. Why is that so hard to understand? Rights are only meaningful if you can exercise them without interference from the government.
If I tell you that if you put your hand in a wood chip you will lose your hand. That's a fact not a threat.
If you tell me that I must plead guilty to a crime or you will put my hand in a woodchipper, that is a threat. That's what happened to Swartz, and every other victim of plea bargains.
Sometimes, the innocent are wrongly accused and go to trial.
More often, the innocent are wrongly accused and advised by their lawyers to take the plea.
Doing so, however, eats up a LOT of taxpayer money.
So does imprisoning a greater proportion of our population than any other country in the world.
Plea bargaining allows those who know they are guilty
Less than 5% of federal defendents exercise their right to a trial. Do you really believe the federal government is right 95% of the time? Come on now.
saving the taxpayers a big chunk of cash that can be much better invested.
There is no better investment than a justice system that is actually just. If you can't afford to give each and every defendent a fair trial, then repeal the law in question and you don't have to. Saving money by depriving people of their rights is barbaric. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting that that is acceptable.
If Swartz wanted to plead guilty, then he didn't need to be threatened with years in prison. Charge him with crimes amounting to 6 months, and let him plead guilty if he actually wants to.
The only reason Swartz was charged with crimes amounting to years in prison was to discourage him from exercising his rights. That's unjust any way you want to portray it.
I don't think this includes any of the assets. It's going to be like Freespace Open. You can play the original game on Linux, if you bought the game. If you didn't, there's tons of user generated content. I don't think it will take long for the community to throw together some Jedi models and arena maps.
Don't get me wrong. I love the X-wing series. I don't think they're suited for todays mass audience though. Reconfiguring your energy levels on the fly is a bit much for todays gamers that can't even handle health paks.
He was offered a choice, and one of those choices was "take this case to trial." He wasn't "deprived of" shit, until he "deprived himself of" living.
He was offered a choice. That choice was to exercise his constitutional rights and face years in prison, or don't exercise his rights and face months in prison. If you can't exercise a right without facing punishment from the government, you don't really have a right at all.
Plea barganing is nothing more than punshment for exercising your rights. It should be abolished entirely.
Prosecutors recommended a six-month sentence in a minimum security prison...if Swartz gave up his right to a trial. These are scumbags that deprive people of their constitutional rights on a regular basis. They would deserve to rot in prison even if Swartz hadn't committed sucicide.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't rely on closed source to keep your secrets. Since we can't verify that the Feds haven't pressured Apple into giving them a back door, we have to assume they have. The article here could easily be propaganda encouraging people to use compromised software.
Use something like Jitsi or Retroshare if you care about your privacy. Anything else should be considered the equivalent of standing on the street corner with a megaphone.
Nope, those are just some user created levels. The assets are indeed the whole storyline and stuff, including player models, maps, textures, voices, and music.
I was going to write that, but it's not quite accurate. See the Aaron Swartz case. JSTOR didn't want to press charges, and MIT didn't make their opinion known. It was because Swartz was a political activist that he got the book thrown at him.
Ownership is not a productive act. Labor is productive. What you are describing is rent seeking.
Since we're talking about what should be allowed by the justice system, that principle is applicable. If *you* want to treat someone like a pariah because you think they are guilty, go ahead. If you want the government to punish someone, you have to prove them guilty.
You're both right. Sales taxes are regressive, and flat income taxes are regressive. We should have neither. Our tax system should get a greater proportion of taxes from people who can afford to pay a greater proportion of taxes. Those are the people who have benefited the most, so they should pay a larger share.
So are you conceding that the US has a serious inequality problem, or did you just log in to rail against Occupy? I don't really care where we draw the line, an exponential curve has no inflection point, so it's arbitrary. If you want to draw the line at the .01%, I'd be happy to have you on my side fighting against the actual class warfare that is the daily business of Washington.
Every item in your hands was built and delivered to you by somebody with more money than you.
Bullshit. Every item in my hands was built and delivered by people who make about as much as I do. The rich just take a cut and add no value.
And whose fault is it if their legal tax liability is "next to nothing"?/i>
It's their fault. Their lobbying money corrupted the government.
I think you will find that most of the hated rich people don't pay "next to nothing". In fact, most of the figures show that those people pay a vastly inordinate amount of the tax bill.
They pay a lower proportion of their wealth than the poor do. The only reason the rich as a group pay a large portion of the total tax bill is because inequality is so extreme.
It is the lowest income people who pay next to nothing, and in some cases, get money back.
As well they should. They haven't benefited much from the way our society is arranged, so they should not shoulder much of the burden. Those who have benefitted the most--the rich--should shoulder most of the burden.
In short, it's yet again the middle class that gets fucked.
Yeah, because the poor have it so good. Face it, there's no middle class. There's the .1% and there's the rest of us.
It's worse than if there were no law. In the state of nature, the strong prey on the weak. In the United States of America, the strong prey on the weak with the help of the government.
That's a really stupid f-ing idea.
Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.
You think they don't know this? Believe it or not, politicians are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are not writing this law so it can be applied to every violation of every TOS. They are only going to prosecute violations of the TOS of powerful corporations, and only when it serves the interests of the government. The people who wrote this law want it to be applied arbitrarily and capriciously.
If the Terms of Use include the phrase "you will give the owner of this website a blowjob for every page loaded" will violators be going to jail?
If it serves the interests of the powerful, then yes. Egregious TOS terms will be ignored until it's convenient not to ignore them. They deliberately write laws that can be misinterpreted in order to be able to deliberately misinterpret the law to punish their political opponents. c.f. Aaron Swartz.
Here are the facts Swartz commit a crime.
Again, does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you? Fucking barbarians.
So let's be accurate: plead out to a 6 month sentence and avoid trial, or go to trial and face a prosecutor asking for 7 years.
That's what I said.
You may still believe that 7 years is too long - that's your prerogative. But Mr. Swartz's constitutional rights were not infringed by anybody during this prosecution.
Whether 7 years is too long is not the issue. The issue is that whether he gets 7 years or 6 months is contingent on whether he exercises his constitutional rights or not.
Increasing the punishment for someone who exercises his rights is a violation of that right. It's no different than charging someone with extra crimes if they exercise their 4th or 5th amendment rights. Do you think people should get extra charges tacked on if they plead the 5th or demand a warrant for a search? I would hope not! Plea bargaining is the exact same thing.
He was offered a chance to plead guilty with a punishment of 6 months.
If he forfeited his right to a trial. Why is that so hard to understand? Rights are only meaningful if you can exercise them without interference from the government.
If I tell you that if you put your hand in a wood chip you will lose your hand. That's a fact not a threat.
If you tell me that I must plead guilty to a crime or you will put my hand in a woodchipper, that is a threat. That's what happened to Swartz, and every other victim of plea bargains.
Sometimes, the innocent are wrongly accused and go to trial.
More often, the innocent are wrongly accused and advised by their lawyers to take the plea.
Doing so, however, eats up a LOT of taxpayer money.
So does imprisoning a greater proportion of our population than any other country in the world.
Plea bargaining allows those who know they are guilty
Less than 5% of federal defendents exercise their right to a trial. Do you really believe the federal government is right 95% of the time? Come on now.
saving the taxpayers a big chunk of cash that can be much better invested.
There is no better investment than a justice system that is actually just. If you can't afford to give each and every defendent a fair trial, then repeal the law in question and you don't have to. Saving money by depriving people of their rights is barbaric. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting that that is acceptable.
If Swartz wanted to plead guilty, then he didn't need to be threatened with years in prison. Charge him with crimes amounting to 6 months, and let him plead guilty if he actually wants to.
The only reason Swartz was charged with crimes amounting to years in prison was to discourage him from exercising his rights. That's unjust any way you want to portray it.
When you are commit a crime you forfeit some of your constitutional rights.
Does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell? Until you've had a trial and been found guilty, you retain all of your rights.
I don't think this includes any of the assets. It's going to be like Freespace Open. You can play the original game on Linux, if you bought the game. If you didn't, there's tons of user generated content. I don't think it will take long for the community to throw together some Jedi models and arena maps.
Don't get me wrong. I love the X-wing series. I don't think they're suited for todays mass audience though. Reconfiguring your energy levels on the fly is a bit much for todays gamers that can't even handle health paks.
He was offered a choice, and one of those choices was "take this case to trial." He wasn't "deprived of" shit, until he "deprived himself of" living.
He was offered a choice. That choice was to exercise his constitutional rights and face years in prison, or don't exercise his rights and face months in prison. If you can't exercise a right without facing punishment from the government, you don't really have a right at all.
Plea barganing is nothing more than punshment for exercising your rights. It should be abolished entirely.
Activism is useless when it is aimed at unproductive channels. Instead, they should have signed the petition
Lolwut?
Prosecutors recommended a six-month sentence in a minimum security prison...if Swartz gave up his right to a trial. These are scumbags that deprive people of their constitutional rights on a regular basis. They would deserve to rot in prison even if Swartz hadn't committed sucicide.
They deserve to rot away in prison for a few decades. They should be happy that harassment is all they get.