Maybe Motorola can't match in speed, but the IBM Power 4 series wipes it's ass with Intel chips. Intel will also hit a serious wall if they can't keep finding ways to up the Mhz on their CPU's, since that seems to be the only way they can compete. It's certainly not through brilliant and innovative design.
1. There is a slight difference between defending yourself from an intruder who presents an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to you and attacking someone you suspect is violating your distribution rights.
2. If I suspect Joe Blow broke into my house, he presents no serious threat since he is not there now, so my only recourse is to call the police to deal with it. If I had rights like the record companies want, I could break in to his house and restrain him myself, possibly being allowed to break his legs as well to prevent any further break in.
So sorry, self defense against an intruder and attacking someone over copyright infringement are not remotely similar, you loose.
Oh, the one that protects free expression, except for a full paragraph of exceptions creating enough loopholes that there should be no problem for them. Oh, or are the "hate speech" prohibitions off the books yet in "free" Europe?
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals...
I would think that they would also be handy for temporary disk attachment. Sometimes it is nice to have backups on something more convenient and reliable than tape, or for archiving seldom used data.
So, over a year you have spent maybe $100 on software. So Linux users make up 5% of the market, and might spend up to $100 a year. How exciting. The 95% Windows + Mac market most likely has users that purchase games, office suite (at $300 a pop, not some cheap OpenOffice subscription), OS upgrades, toy utilities, etc. A 95% market share with average spending of $500 or more a year vs 5% with average spending of $100 per year. Which market would you go after?
Ah, takings, obviously BS. I mean, just because the state decides that you can't develop your land, mine, build a house, or even go fishing on it, that's not the same as taking it. After all, the deed still might make a nice decoration. Most of these takings cases do not involve "raping the land" but people who are prevented from building on anything that has runoff going onto it. This wasn't much of an issue before the wetlands protection started full swing. Saying someone can't strip mine is one thing, that you can't even build your house there is quite another.
No, in theory it can be changed through a slow and difficult to pass constitutional amendment, not the present usurpation of rights where it may be changed for any "noble end", short sighted actions that tend to crush liberty in the long run.
Then again if the government was not given the authority to micro manage every aspect of our lives, there would not be the ability to pass those laws, and corporate lobbying would become irrelevant.
Yes, there have been some rulings. Dred Scott v. Sandford included the rights "...to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms where ever they went." when defining the rights of citizens. United States vs. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois both affirmed that the second amendment protected citizens from federal action, and Presser went farther stating that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the militia, and that "States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government." Robertson v. Baldwin also stated that the 2nd is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.
Lewis vs. United States challenged the prohibition of owning firearms attached to being a convicted felon, the court ruled that numerous fundamental rights are lost, including the rights to vote and hold office, so the prohibition was valid since other comparable rights were lost. It was also noted relating to US vs. Miller that for a firearm to be protected, it must have a militia purpose, a test which a short barreled shotgun did not have.
The best recent one is United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, where the court fuled that the meaning of "the people" in the second amendment is the same as its meaning in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments.
That puts the second amendment in the same position as some other important amendments, a constitutionally protected individual right.
Keep away 3 or 4 attackers with a walking stick? Without a significant amount of training, it is a lot harder than it looks. It is not too hard to win one-on-one against a baseball bat with a little practice, all you have to do is close range quickly and all the leverage that makes it an effective weapon is gone. A walking stick may recover from a swing faster, but it still operates on the same principle. As for the taser, it is not a terribly effective weapon, since it requires prolonged contact with relatively unprotected flesh (light shirt or such), making it nearly useless in the winter or against any individual who is smart enough to keep you from making contact for long enough to disable. As for the firing tasers (two small darts are fired trailing wires to the battery pack in the handle), they are a one-shot weapon, and bulkier than many firearms. For the effectiveness of tasers, watch the full video of the Rodney King stop, where he is hit multiple times with one to no effect. Pepper spray can be useful, but also carries major risks. First, they require decent accuracy to cause effects immediately, otherwise your attacker has a few seconds before it starts to hurt. Second, they still know where you are, and once a large attacker closes with a normal individual, they can still do significant damage. About the only use of pepper spray is to keep dogs away or to give you a chance at running if they are more than 10-15 feet away.
Martial arts training can be valuable, but it takes at least 2 years of training 2-3 days per week to be good enough to face even a moderately skilled street fighter. This assumes one of the harder styles where you are also trained to be able to handle the pain of being struck as you close and disable the attacker (it takes a lot more than a couple years to be able to do it without being hit). Most people do not have the time or the willpower for this kind of committment.
Don't get me wrong, I personally carry pepper spray, and have spent years in Wing Tsun and Kokondo, but these are only a part of my defensive options. If the situation warrants, I have the option of more leathal measures such as a knife or a firearm. I have also received significant amounts of training in using these weapons, as well as the legal requirements for escalation of force in my area. The point is that there are different situations requiring a different level of force, and it is foolhardy to pretend that what is needed to deter a mugger will be sufficient to stop a determined attacker or an individual on some drugs, and this level changes depending on the victim involved. A 6'4" linebacker can handle most situations with his hands, while a 70 year old wheelchair bound individual would require a firearm for the same situation. People have different needs, respect those.
The cheating rules were the best! Remember, if someone leaves the room to go to the bathroom or something...well, they probably won't have much left when they return. Or the classic "oops, I seem to have slipped, and wow, my hand just happened to land on the money pile, but that's not where all this new cash came from...". The best drinking game around!
I really don't even know where to start with this kind of paranoid ranting. What reason is there for me to believe that Red Hat of all distros will start creating non-GPL software? They have recently dropped some of their value-added products that used to ship with Red Hat (BRU2000, Metro-X) so that their distro will include no non-free software. In contrast, both Caldera and SuSE happily ship propriatary software with their distributions (Star Office, Netscape web server, KDE, etc.), with Caldera also selling much closed source commercial software with per user licensing fees. The anti-Red Hat types seem to be suffering from a knee-jerk reaction to any company that grows. The real threat is from distros like Caldera that have very well developed reseller channels and are targeting the corporate market as well. Basically, I hear lots of speculation about Red Hat becoming another Microsoft, but it seems to be only speculation. If you look at the actions of companies like Caldera, you can see a company that is targeting a very similar market to the one Red Hat is after, and is actually engaging in all the practices you claim to be worried about. As to what they develop to, Red Hat has financed development of only GPL'd software, how about the others?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Motorola can't match in speed, but the IBM Power 4 series wipes it's ass with Intel chips. Intel will also hit a serious wall if they can't keep finding ways to up the Mhz on their CPU's, since that seems to be the only way they can compete. It's certainly not through brilliant and innovative design.
No. Two simple problems there.
1. There is a slight difference between defending yourself from an intruder who presents an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to you and attacking someone you suspect is violating your distribution rights.
2. If I suspect Joe Blow broke into my house, he presents no serious threat since he is not there now, so my only recourse is to call the police to deal with it. If I had rights like the record companies want, I could break in to his house and restrain him myself, possibly being allowed to break his legs as well to prevent any further break in.
So sorry, self defense against an intruder and attacking someone over copyright infringement are not remotely similar, you loose.
Oh, the one that protects free expression, except for a full paragraph of exceptions creating enough loopholes that there should be no problem for them. Oh, or are the "hate speech" prohibitions off the books yet in "free" Europe?
Now, knowing how priorities run, are you really surprised that the invention of the universal translator was followed by the universal copulator?
I would think that they would also be handy for temporary disk attachment. Sometimes it is nice to have backups on something more convenient and reliable than tape, or for archiving seldom used data.
So, over a year you have spent maybe $100 on software. So Linux users make up 5% of the market, and might spend up to $100 a year. How exciting. The 95% Windows + Mac market most likely has users that purchase games, office suite (at $300 a pop, not some cheap OpenOffice subscription), OS upgrades, toy utilities, etc. A 95% market share with average spending of $500 or more a year vs 5% with average spending of $100 per year. Which market would you go after?
Ah, takings, obviously BS. I mean, just because the state decides that you can't develop your land, mine, build a house, or even go fishing on it, that's not the same as taking it. After all, the deed still might make a nice decoration. Most of these takings cases do not involve "raping the land" but people who are prevented from building on anything that has runoff going onto it. This wasn't much of an issue before the wetlands protection started full swing. Saying someone can't strip mine is one thing, that you can't even build your house there is quite another.
No, in theory it can be changed through a slow and difficult to pass constitutional amendment, not the present usurpation of rights where it may be changed for any "noble end", short sighted actions that tend to crush liberty in the long run.
Then again if the government was not given the authority to micro manage every aspect of our lives, there would not be the ability to pass those laws, and corporate lobbying would become irrelevant.
Lewis vs. United States challenged the prohibition of owning firearms attached to being a convicted felon, the court ruled that numerous fundamental rights are lost, including the rights to vote and hold office, so the prohibition was valid since other comparable rights were lost. It was also noted relating to US vs. Miller that for a firearm to be protected, it must have a militia purpose, a test which a short barreled shotgun did not have.
The best recent one is United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, where the court fuled that the meaning of "the people" in the second amendment is the same as its meaning in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments.
That puts the second amendment in the same position as some other important amendments, a constitutionally protected individual right.
Keep away 3 or 4 attackers with a walking stick? Without a significant amount of training, it is a lot harder than it looks. It is not too hard to win one-on-one against a baseball bat with a little practice, all you have to do is close range quickly and all the leverage that makes it an effective weapon is gone. A walking stick may recover from a swing faster, but it still operates on the same principle. As for the taser, it is not a terribly effective weapon, since it requires prolonged contact with relatively unprotected flesh (light shirt or such), making it nearly useless in the winter or against any individual who is smart enough to keep you from making contact for long enough to disable. As for the firing tasers (two small darts are fired trailing wires to the battery pack in the handle), they are a one-shot weapon, and bulkier than many firearms. For the effectiveness of tasers, watch the full video of the Rodney King stop, where he is hit multiple times with one to no effect. Pepper spray can be useful, but also carries major risks. First, they require decent accuracy to cause effects immediately, otherwise your attacker has a few seconds before it starts to hurt. Second, they still know where you are, and once a large attacker closes with a normal individual, they can still do significant damage. About the only use of pepper spray is to keep dogs away or to give you a chance at running if they are more than 10-15 feet away.
Martial arts training can be valuable, but it takes at least 2 years of training 2-3 days per week to be good enough to face even a moderately skilled street fighter. This assumes one of the harder styles where you are also trained to be able to handle the pain of being struck as you close and disable the attacker (it takes a lot more than a couple years to be able to do it without being hit). Most people do not have the time or the willpower for this kind of committment.
Don't get me wrong, I personally carry pepper spray, and have spent years in Wing Tsun and Kokondo, but these are only a part of my defensive options. If the situation warrants, I have the option of more leathal measures such as a knife or a firearm. I have also received significant amounts of training in using these weapons, as well as the legal requirements for escalation of force in my area. The point is that there are different situations requiring a different level of force, and it is foolhardy to pretend that what is needed to deter a mugger will be sufficient to stop a determined attacker or an individual on some drugs, and this level changes depending on the victim involved. A 6'4" linebacker can handle most situations with his hands, while a 70 year old wheelchair bound individual would require a firearm for the same situation. People have different needs, respect those.
The cheating rules were the best! Remember, if someone leaves the room to go to the bathroom or something...well, they probably won't have much left when they return. Or the classic "oops, I seem to have slipped, and wow, my hand just happened to land on the money pile, but that's not where all this new cash came from...". The best drinking game around!
I really don't even know where to start with this kind of paranoid ranting. What reason is there for me to believe that Red Hat of all distros will start creating non-GPL software? They have recently dropped some of their value-added products that used to ship with Red Hat (BRU2000, Metro-X) so that their distro will include no non-free software. In contrast, both Caldera and SuSE happily ship propriatary software with their distributions (Star Office, Netscape web server, KDE, etc.), with Caldera also selling much closed source commercial software with per user licensing fees. The anti-Red Hat types seem to be suffering from a knee-jerk reaction to any company that grows. The real threat is from distros like Caldera that have very well developed reseller channels and are targeting the corporate market as well. Basically, I hear lots of speculation about Red Hat becoming another Microsoft, but it seems to be only speculation. If you look at the actions of companies like Caldera, you can see a company that is targeting a very similar market to the one Red Hat is after, and is actually engaging in all the practices you claim to be worried about. As to what they develop to, Red Hat has financed development of only GPL'd software, how about the others?