No, I can not assert that the police I know have not committed crimes, based on first hand surveilance. To require me to do such, however, is a fallacious argument. I need merely establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not abuse their power.
...which you haven't done. You have provided no evidence that would prove the integrity of these officers.
Based on my relationship with the police officers, I can establish that the officers do not abuse their power.
Based on my relationship with Hitler, I can establish that he was a fun-loving vegetarian who never harmed a fly and enjoyed basket weaving.
Can I really establish that Hitler was a nice guy just because a blew a couple of weeks with him? Of course not.
My point? You can't prove anything just because someone hasn't displayed certain traits in your experience with them. We have no way of knowing if Officer Friendly goes fishing with you, then brutally beats the elderly in the streets. Frankly, you have no way of knowing that either.
Based on the fact that you don't know the nature of the relationship between me and the officers I am judging, you are not within the realm of reason to judge whether or not I am right in saying that the officers I know have comitted abuse.
This is exactly the reason that we've been operating under the assumption that these people are casual friends of yours.
By your own judging criteria, can I say that your wife/daughter/mother is a whore? Based on the fact that you can not be with your wife/daughter/mother 24 hours a day, what ability do you have to defend against that statement?
The senario that you put forth is nothing like the current one for a whole host of reasons.
Firstly, this senario involves you accusing my wife/daughter/mother of being a whore. For this to be a similar senario, I would have had to claim that my wife/daughter/mother wasn't a whore, then refuse to back it with proof. You claimed that your police officer friends were not corrupt, the Slashdot community asked you for proof your friends were on the level, which you never provided.
"Huh, huh, huhuhuhuh. Proof is a fallacy. Yeah, yeah."
This, of course, is false. When you provide a statement, you are also under the burden of proof to back those statements.
Next, a wife/daughter/mother is a close family relation, not a casual friend like you claim these police officers are. You are expected to know more about a family relation than you are about a casual friend.
Though no one can say anything with 100% certainty, in my experiences with my wife/daughter/mother, I have never found her to be a whore. This has nothing to do with your corrupt cop cronies.
Man, I haven't seen a total logical disconnect like that since Reagan was in office.
For the second time, would you agree that officers are spit on every day of their lives?
It was an ignorant, meaningless question the first time you asked it, as it continues to be now, the second you've asked it. Spit on by who? Metaphorically? What?
I would say that the vast majority of citizens who treat officers with any respect do not get undue harassment by the officers.
So the vast majority of people don't get harassed, are you using that as justification for the minority that is harassed?
Most of the anecdotes I have heard about citizens being treated harshly by cops have started out with the citizens refusing to comply with the officer's requests.
No it isn't, you said "The GPL allows" which would suggest to someone who doesn't know better that there is a clause in the GPL that allows authors to change their licencing. This is not the case, they have that right simply because they are the copyright holder(s).
The GPL doesn't explicitly deny changing the license, therefore "the GPL allows..." is a perfectly correct thing to say, even if it's not 100% clear to you.
Why don't you go eat a Vegemite sandwich, you daft Aussie?
Man, I could vomit hostility at you forever if you keep this up.
A police officer will also not go around touting how unabusive he is. Do you honestly believe that the police who don't break the law will brag about it to civilians later? I can't guarentee every officer is not crooked, but I am sure that the ones _I_ know aren't.
So I suppose that you know your police officer friends are legitimate by first hand around-the-clock surveillence, right? No? So your police officer friends talk about not being abusive but there aren't any officers that do the same?
Do you see why I don't put a whole lot of faith in your opinions?
Would you agree with organizations such as the ACLU have made it easy for criminals to sue police officers at the drop of a hat?
No, I wouldn't. The ACLU is one of the few organizations around that offers citizens some recourse against abuses by police. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that this is a bad thing.
Would you agree that police officers are spit on, by people like yourself, every day of their life?
Would you agree that citizens are spit on by police officers every day of their lives? I sure would. After seeing people thrown down onto the asphalt, kicked, beaten, sodimized, and murdered, I think I'm justified in claiming that police have the upper hand in these situations.
So, no. The police don't get spit on enough.
Now, let's poke a few more holes in your logic...
Until a citizen has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that their life is in danger of _murder_ (IE, an unjust killing) they have no right to lift so much as a finger at an officer.
There's no time to "establish beyond a shadow of a doubt" when someone is pointing a gun at you, especially if the police officer drew his gun first. I wonder what an situation an officer has to be in to justify murder...?
You may be asking what would justify an officer killing a suspect. Should a suspect resist in a manner that would so much as risk the officer breaking a fingernail, the officer should have the right (and be encouraged) to defend himself with lethal force.
Heh. You're on drugs.
Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about Officer Friendly's fingernail, and the courts agree with me. Unless an officer can show that a suspect was a clear and present danger to the safety of an officer, no one is legally allowed to murder him. If a citizen can show the same, that it was either the officer or him, he's granted the same justification. There isn't a double standard, nor should there be.
...you would have to argue that police have a perverse sense of authority to view the life of a police officer as a self absorbed paradise.
It's not a very hard arguement to make. Look at a cop's salary, the job is obviously not about the money. If you can't get rich being a cop, why would you want to be one? One word: Power.
Statements like this make me wonder if you're merely a troll.
Well, my user number is lower than 20,000, my karma is maxed out, and I have a +1 Bonus (which I never use). Yeah, I must be a troll. And who do you think you are, Signal_11?
A suspect who resists the police should expect the violence that will result from his resistance.
Well, it's good to know that, all told, you support the perpetuation of police crimes against humanity. Yes, tent1cle, violence solves everything, and if it's coming from a police officer, it must be justified, too.
Is it hard to hear with your head shoved so far up your ass?
Authors (ie copyright holders) changing licencing is not "allowed" by the GPL. The GPL has no say in the matter, as copyright holders they (collectively) are not bound by the GPL, they already have full rights to do whatever they like with the code.
This is precisly what I said.
"The GPL allows developers to change the license of their code if they are in 100% agreement with each other about the changes."
All this means is that a product that is licensed under the GPL can't have its license changed without the consent of everyone who has contributed code. This needs to be mentioned as the viral nature of the GPL makes changing the license on a piece of software, in practice, difficult to acheive.
Quit being so bloody contrarian.
The sole reason an EULA can't limit the rights granted by the GPL is that the GPL forbids it.
If an EULA could trump the license on any piece of software, it would be the death of the industry. If you release a shareware product, I could write a new license for it, distribute it, and start making your money.
I can hear the entire Slashdot community sighing and shaking their heads.
Please cite for me specifically where and how I have been intolerant.
Easy.
When you mentioned that your police officer friends never abused their power, you recieved a bunch of replies noting that you had no reliable way of knowing this. Moreover, there was a fair amount of doubt that a corrupt cop would come clean to his civilian friend(s). Instead of humoring/exploring these notions, you insisted that the whole concept was ludicrous. This insistance that you were correct was intolerance for the opinions of others.
Part of the definition of being a bigot is one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. You are blindly and obstinately devoted to your opinion that your police officer friends don't abuse their power, therefore you are bigoted against other opinions.
As you have been shown conclusivly at this point to be a bigot and intolerant.
Would you like me to specifically cite you for where and how you've wasted vast amounts of my time by being a twerp who feels he has the right to be "cited" on everything?
IANAL but I don't see how this is a legal breach of the GPL, a person voluntarily gives up their rights.
You are somewhat correct. The GPL allows developers to change the license of their code if they are in 100% agreement with each other about the changes. This is not the issue at play.
This product is using a Linux back-end, and Linux is GPL'd. When they officially release they will have to provide the Linux kernel developers with any changes they made to the GPL'd Linux kernel code. When a company makes a decision to use code produced under a certain license, they agree to abide by the terms of that license. If they do not furnish their code changes (as the GPL states they must), it can be said to be a breach of their implied agreement to the terms of the GPL.
Short Answer: "No. They can't write a clause into their EULA to trump the GPL."
You can't wrap the GPL in an EULA and absolve yourself of all responsibility to the code developers. That's why Microsoft doesn't like open source, because they have no way of making it proprietary.
A person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
This couldn't describe you any more if it had your picture integrated into it.
These men go completely by the book, and I have never heard them once allude to anything illegal or abusive.
Do you really think that those who abuse their power brag about it to civilians later?
I regularly hear stories about their jobs which makes me sick to my stomach at the flak they recieve.
They chose the occupation because they are authoritarians who like to harass other people. Don't show them pity because they want to be loved, too.
This [flak] ranges from law school students who and kids with rich parents who are ready to sue at the drop of the hat, to idiots who are ready to fight an armed officer (or worse).
We should all be ready to kill an armed officer, if need be.
I would be the last to advocate the killing of every police officer, but when I hear about yet another police murder on the news, I stop to think how it could have been avoided by a citizen with a firearm killing the corrupt cop on the spot. We do have the right to bear arms, and if a cop is directly threatening your life, shoot him between the eyes.
"Holy shit! Is this guy serious?"
Yup. Officer Friendly is trained to eliminate any threat to himself, you would be a fool not to treat the officer with the same suspicion that you're placed under in every traffic stop.
The police have no interest in protecting civilians, their occupation is ONLY to uphold the law.
The beauty of Red Bull is that the caffeine keeps you just above "stupor" level, so that you may continue to consume alcohol in vast quantites without passing out. Everyone knows that if you're passed out on the floor in a pool of your own vomit, you can't consume any more alcoholic beverages.
If Red Bull kills the occasional party animal, that makes it no less useful to the rest of us who are still alive enough to drink.
(Though, I'll be taking it easy on the Red Devils for a while.)
If you use definitions 1 or 3 from dictionary.com, I agree.
That's because definition #2 is the past tense of "lethal".
"Ed's decision to brake hard while slipping on a patch of ice was lethal."
So, I suppose it should be noted that "lethal", for the purposes of this discussion, means having the ability to cause death.
However, modern firearms and ammunition are designed to be less lethal than they were in the past.
Absolutely not.
Compare a colonial-era musket to a semi-automatic, clip-loading Glock 9mm pistol. With a musket, you have to load black powder, load in your shot, carefully pack the load down into the barrel, aim (making sure not to let the shot roll out of the barrel), and fire. With the modern 9mm, you load the clip, turn off the safety, and fire until you run out of rounds.
Who's designing these non-lethal firearms and ammo? Surely not Glock, Taurus, or Remington. Look at the wide array of armor-piercing
and hollow-point ammo the average person has at their disposal. New firearms are designed to be lighter, higher powered, more accurate, and more reliable. What does all this add up to? Weaponry now is easily many times more lethal than the guns of yesteryear.
Guns are designed as lethal weapons? All guns? Some guns? Which guns?
Guns that are designed to fire little pieces of metal can be considered lethal. Little pieces of metal, when they collide with fleshy matter at high speeds, tend to destroy said matter.
It would be hard to claim that all guns are designed to be lethal weapons. There are a multitude of non-lethal water guns, blackhead guns, and radar guns that are still in production. Just wait until they make you start registering the damn things!
This is pretty easy to verify. Look for trolls in the really old archives and you won't find anything except the occasional "First Post!".
At the time, what CmdrTaco did to remedy the "problem" was to automatically post "First Post!" messages to all stories when they were first created, then delete the post after a few comments had been logged. Pandora's Box was unfortunatly opened when "moderation" was first introduced. For a while, everyone wondered what all of this "(Score:2)" shit was. Before we knew it, karma was enacted.
Karma was really what killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere of Slashdot. Eventually, everyone was always pissed off because someone failed to see the humor in their "m1Cr0SofT SuX" post, didn't like their NetBSD evangelism, or thought they said "fuck" too much.
Now, I doubt even HAL could figure out a way to get rid of all of the trolls. Looking at Slashdot's noise problem, it almost makes me yen to go back to the glory days of USENET.
Ah. More brilliance brought to us by way of "the nation's #1 on-line service, America On-Line!"
You're a stooge. Here's why:
Acme Rent-A-Car was told that they could not extort money from their customers and justify these actions with a poorly worded contract. This court decision doesn't exonerate speeders in way, they are still subject to the same laws and enforcement that they have always been subjected to.
Liberals love scoundrels, cheats, con men and liars.
Conservatives eat babies, don't pay their taxes, smoke crack, and eat at IHOP.
It's obvious that you have no real argumentative abilities, so you're trying to turn this into right-wing vs. left-wing politics. I'll bet you stole this garbage verbatim from late-night AM radio. Your partisan rambling does not apply here.
If liberals so identified with cheats, they would be backing Acme Rent-A-Car here, as they were the only ones who were doing any cheating through this whole ordeal.
The obvious solution will be for private citizens to be armed in their cars. [...] The Left Wing's answer is...to force everyone else to be a vulnerable... (gun control being one example).
The reason that there is gun control legislation on the books is to keep trigger-happy maniacs such as yourself from owning a firearm.
There are over 40k traffic fatalities a year. You have no right to put my life in danger just because you are too much of a brat to obey the law. I, on the other hand, have a perfect right to defend myself...
No, you don't have the right to "defend yourself" against the possibility of being injured on the highways, especially if doing so endangers other drivers. If you have a problem with the way everybody else drives, get off the road.
Acme was probably doing this in order to whore karma with their insurer.
There's no proof of this. The only thing that we can be sure about is that the contract was poorly worded, and it is likely this was done intentionally to keep the renter from putting a certain two contractual obligations together, allowing the company to reap the benefits of the increased income by way of the "violation fee". (See below for the article quote.)
It's just a civil claim that the customer behaved unlawfully or dangerously with rented property, in violation of a rental agreement.
No, the fines were not "civil claims", they were undisclosed charges against the renter's credit card that cannot be disputed. Acme Rent-A-Car was not operating in the legal system to collect these fines.
No biggie if someone can take the three minutes to actually read the contract before signing it.
The problem is that Acme was not forthcoming with this information. You would known this if you had read the article...
On its contracts, Acme states that "vehicles driven in excess of posted speed limit will be charged a $150 fee per occurrence. All our vehicles are GPS equipped." Turner, and many other customers, didn't connect the two statements, and paid for it later.
Clearly, Acme was doing noting more than trying to harvest revenue by cloudily wording their contract to sucker renters into the $150 fee.
To The Consumers: The quickest way to halt these invasive practices is to boycott the companies that attempt to implement them. Vote with your dollar to save your privacy.
I sure don't remember seeing any "little posts" that emitted RF. Besides, this scheme wouldn't make much difference as most residents of VA don't have radar detectors of any type.
Basing traffic fines on a driver's income has already been done in Finland. A "dot com" millionaire, driving dangerously in his Ferrari, was fined the equivilant of $44,100US.
If SlashdotLaw.org sounds cool, you should check out OpenLaw. From what I can see, they're doing pretty much the same thing that our friend the Anonymous Slashdot Troll suggested. They've got links to information and discussion boards for conversing on the details of active lawsuits.
ph33r mY 3lit3 l4w sK1llZ!
[Moderators: Think twice about that "Overrated" option, this post is 100% on-topic.]
Exactly, and that is where the DeCSS fiasco may die, if we only let it.
If the DeCSS fiasco was simply a matter of "letting it die", the issue would have been dead for months now.
People are stupid enough to associate with libdvdcss with "illegal" when they hear people asking "Is that illegal?"
Well, I never said "Is that illegal?"
IanCarlson: I'm not sure as to the legality of this.
All this means is that the legality should be looked into futher. I sure do hope that the code doesn't infringe on the intellectual property rights of a company in the MPAA, but if it does, it should be noted for the record.
It is silly to think that if you don't question the software's legality, the MPAA lawyers won't either.
Well, it's an open-source method of transparently extracting DVD data probably based on DeCSS. Last time I checked, 2600 lost their DeCSS case to the MPAA and unfortunately were forced to remove their links to the DeCSS code.
Of course the question here is, "Is it legal?" I didn't even infer it was illegal, I just wanted to know how close to illegal it is, or if there was some kind of legislation in France that permitted this sort of thing. If "people" are stupid enough to associate "libdvdcss" with "illegal" just because of something they read on Slashdot, they'll also believe that Natalie Portman has been petrified, everyone should have grits in their pants, and that all your base are belong to CATS.
WARNING:Slashdot is for entertainment purposes only. Any information found on these message boards is probably partially incorrect, mostly incorrect, or completely fabricated. As a matter of fact, you've probably just imagined the whole Slashdot thing. Go home now.
How'd you do on the reading comprehension section of the SAT?
Well above average. [ *Cough, Kissmyass, Cough* ]
I am happy when [...] someone's financial interest is aligned with my own personal interest. This is one of those cases.
The byproduct of this greed is not safety. The rental car company won't divulge the fact that the car fines you for going over 90 when you rent it, so people who were going to drive that fast will do so anyway and be hit with the fines when they bring the car back. The device doesn't stop the rental car driver from going over 90MPH; those drivers who are hazards are going to continue to be hazards. If you don't go over 90MPH anyway, this has little to no effect on you, you'll be just as safe as before.
In reality, you probably won't notice any difference in quality between a car that has gone 90MPH on the freeway versus one that hasn't. Chances are there's been more damage done to the car on broken city asphalt than anywhere else.
So where is the safety gain? There isn't one. The car itself is just as safe/dangerous as it always has been, it's just now the rental car company has stuffed pockets from all of those $150 infraction fees. A fine of $150 per instance far from coincides with "raised insurance rates", which you've attempted to justify this with.
How can you be against getting Big Brother out of the passenger seat?
I am glad to see someone looking out for my safety, even if it is just because it coincides with their economic situation.
They are not looking out for your safety, they're looking out solely for their pocketbook and nothing more. If you think that this is being done to help the consumer in some way, you're mistaken. The company implemented this system so they could harvest scads of cash off of their customers turned traffic convicts.
You don't have the right to debate the rental company's fines; this is worse than an actual police ticketing. With no way to dispute these speeding accusations, the company knows that you'll pay exactly what they ask or they'll attack you with contractual fine print. At $150 per "violation", this sure does make for quite a lucrative opportunity.
Benjamin Franklin said on the topic, "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
You are giving up your right to privacy just to feel a little safer. By Ben's standards, you don't deserve either.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I can not assert that the police I know have not committed crimes, based on first hand surveilance. To require me to do such, however, is a fallacious argument. I need merely establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not abuse their power.
...which you haven't done. You have provided no evidence that would prove the integrity of these officers.
Based on my relationship with the police officers, I can establish that the officers do not abuse their power.
Based on my relationship with Hitler, I can establish that he was a fun-loving vegetarian who never harmed a fly and enjoyed basket weaving.
Can I really establish that Hitler was a nice guy just because a blew a couple of weeks with him? Of course not.
My point? You can't prove anything just because someone hasn't displayed certain traits in your experience with them. We have no way of knowing if Officer Friendly goes fishing with you, then brutally beats the elderly in the streets. Frankly, you have no way of knowing that either.
Based on the fact that you don't know the nature of the relationship between me and the officers I am judging, you are not within the realm of reason to judge whether or not I am right in saying that the officers I know have comitted abuse.
This is exactly the reason that we've been operating under the assumption that these people are casual friends of yours.
By your own judging criteria, can I say that your wife/daughter/mother is a whore? Based on the fact that you can not be with your wife/daughter/mother 24 hours a day, what ability do you have to defend against that statement?
The senario that you put forth is nothing like the current one for a whole host of reasons.
Firstly, this senario involves you accusing my wife/daughter/mother of being a whore. For this to be a similar senario, I would have had to claim that my wife/daughter/mother wasn't a whore, then refuse to back it with proof. You claimed that your police officer friends were not corrupt, the Slashdot community asked you for proof your friends were on the level, which you never provided.
"Huh, huh, huhuhuhuh. Proof is a fallacy. Yeah, yeah."
This, of course, is false. When you provide a statement, you are also under the burden of proof to back those statements.
Next, a wife/daughter/mother is a close family relation, not a casual friend like you claim these police officers are. You are expected to know more about a family relation than you are about a casual friend.
Though no one can say anything with 100% certainty, in my experiences with my wife/daughter/mother, I have never found her to be a whore. This has nothing to do with your corrupt cop cronies.
Man, I haven't seen a total logical disconnect like that since Reagan was in office.
For the second time, would you agree that officers are spit on every day of their lives?
It was an ignorant, meaningless question the first time you asked it, as it continues to be now, the second you've asked it. Spit on by who? Metaphorically? What?
I would say that the vast majority of citizens who treat officers with any respect do not get undue harassment by the officers.
So the vast majority of people don't get harassed, are you using that as justification for the minority that is harassed?
Most of the anecdotes I have heard about citizens being treated harshly by cops have started out with the citizens refusing to comply with the officer's requests.
No it isn't, you said "The GPL allows" which would suggest to someone who doesn't know better that there is a clause in the GPL that allows authors to change their licencing. This is not the case, they have that right simply because they are the copyright holder(s).
The GPL doesn't explicitly deny changing the license, therefore "the GPL allows..." is a perfectly correct thing to say, even if it's not 100% clear to you.
Why don't you go eat a Vegemite sandwich, you daft Aussie?
Man, I could vomit hostility at you forever if you keep this up.
...you would have to argue that police have a perverse sense of authority to view the life of a police officer as a self absorbed paradise.
A police officer will also not go around touting how unabusive he is. Do you honestly believe that the police who don't break the law will brag about it to civilians later? I can't guarentee every officer is not crooked, but I am sure that the ones _I_ know aren't.
So I suppose that you know your police officer friends are legitimate by first hand around-the-clock surveillence, right? No? So your police officer friends talk about not being abusive but there aren't any officers that do the same?
Do you see why I don't put a whole lot of faith in your opinions?
Would you agree with organizations such as the ACLU have made it easy for criminals to sue police officers at the drop of a hat?
No, I wouldn't. The ACLU is one of the few organizations around that offers citizens some recourse against abuses by police. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that this is a bad thing.
Would you agree that police officers are spit on, by people like yourself, every day of their life?
Would you agree that citizens are spit on by police officers every day of their lives? I sure would. After seeing people thrown down onto the asphalt, kicked, beaten, sodimized, and murdered, I think I'm justified in claiming that police have the upper hand in these situations.
So, no. The police don't get spit on enough.
Now, let's poke a few more holes in your logic...
Until a citizen has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that their life is in danger of _murder_ (IE, an unjust killing) they have no right to lift so much as a finger at an officer.
There's no time to "establish beyond a shadow of a doubt" when someone is pointing a gun at you, especially if the police officer drew his gun first. I wonder what an situation an officer has to be in to justify murder...?
You may be asking what would justify an officer killing a suspect. Should a suspect resist in a manner that would so much as risk the officer breaking a fingernail, the officer should have the right (and be encouraged) to defend himself with lethal force.
Heh. You're on drugs.
Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about Officer Friendly's fingernail, and the courts agree with me. Unless an officer can show that a suspect was a clear and present danger to the safety of an officer, no one is legally allowed to murder him. If a citizen can show the same, that it was either the officer or him, he's granted the same justification. There isn't a double standard, nor should there be.
It's not a very hard arguement to make. Look at a cop's salary, the job is obviously not about the money. If you can't get rich being a cop, why would you want to be one? One word: Power.
Statements like this make me wonder if you're merely a troll.
Well, my user number is lower than 20,000, my karma is maxed out, and I have a +1 Bonus (which I never use). Yeah, I must be a troll. And who do you think you are, Signal_11?
A suspect who resists the police should expect the violence that will result from his resistance.
Well, it's good to know that, all told, you support the perpetuation of police crimes against humanity. Yes, tent1cle, violence solves everything, and if it's coming from a police officer, it must be justified, too.
Is it hard to hear with your head shoved so far up your ass?
Authors (ie copyright holders) changing licencing is not "allowed" by the GPL. The GPL has no say in the matter, as copyright holders they (collectively) are not bound by the GPL, they already have full rights to do whatever they like with the code.
This is precisly what I said.
"The GPL allows developers to change the license of their code if they are in 100% agreement with each other about the changes."
All this means is that a product that is licensed under the GPL can't have its license changed without the consent of everyone who has contributed code. This needs to be mentioned as the viral nature of the GPL makes changing the license on a piece of software, in practice, difficult to acheive.
Quit being so bloody contrarian.
The sole reason an EULA can't limit the rights granted by the GPL is that the GPL forbids it.
If an EULA could trump the license on any piece of software, it would be the death of the industry. If you release a shareware product, I could write a new license for it, distribute it, and start making your money.
I can hear the entire Slashdot community sighing and shaking their heads.
Please cite for me specifically where and how I have been intolerant.
Easy.
When you mentioned that your police officer friends never abused their power, you recieved a bunch of replies noting that you had no reliable way of knowing this. Moreover, there was a fair amount of doubt that a corrupt cop would come clean to his civilian friend(s). Instead of humoring/exploring these notions, you insisted that the whole concept was ludicrous. This insistance that you were correct was intolerance for the opinions of others.
Part of the definition of being a bigot is one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. You are blindly and obstinately devoted to your opinion that your police officer friends don't abuse their power, therefore you are bigoted against other opinions.
As you have been shown conclusivly at this point to be a bigot and intolerant.
Would you like me to specifically cite you for where and how you've wasted vast amounts of my time by being a twerp who feels he has the right to be "cited" on everything?
IANAL but I don't see how this is a legal breach of the GPL, a person voluntarily gives up their rights.
You are somewhat correct. The GPL allows developers to change the license of their code if they are in 100% agreement with each other about the changes. This is not the issue at play.
This product is using a Linux back-end, and Linux is GPL'd. When they officially release they will have to provide the Linux kernel developers with any changes they made to the GPL'd Linux kernel code. When a company makes a decision to use code produced under a certain license, they agree to abide by the terms of that license. If they do not furnish their code changes (as the GPL states they must), it can be said to be a breach of their implied agreement to the terms of the GPL.
Short Answer: "No. They can't write a clause into their EULA to trump the GPL."
Does that clear things up?
How about the one we all used circa-`98?
Login: cipherpunk / Password: cipherpunk
You can't wrap the GPL in an EULA and absolve yourself of all responsibility to the code developers. That's why Microsoft doesn't like open source, because they have no way of making it proprietary.
Please, cite for me where I demonstrated bigotry.
Okay.
bigot \Big"ot\, n.
A person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
This couldn't describe you any more if it had your picture integrated into it.
These men go completely by the book, and I have never heard them once allude to anything illegal or abusive.
Do you really think that those who abuse their power brag about it to civilians later?
I regularly hear stories about their jobs which makes me sick to my stomach at the flak they recieve.
They chose the occupation because they are authoritarians who like to harass other people. Don't show them pity because they want to be loved, too.
This [flak] ranges from law school students who and kids with rich parents who are ready to sue at the drop of the hat, to idiots who are ready to fight an armed officer (or worse).
We should all be ready to kill an armed officer, if need be.
I would be the last to advocate the killing of every police officer, but when I hear about yet another police murder on the news, I stop to think how it could have been avoided by a citizen with a firearm killing the corrupt cop on the spot. We do have the right to bear arms, and if a cop is directly threatening your life, shoot him between the eyes.
"Holy shit! Is this guy serious?"
Yup. Officer Friendly is trained to eliminate any threat to himself, you would be a fool not to treat the officer with the same suspicion that you're placed under in every traffic stop.
The police have no interest in protecting civilians, their occupation is ONLY to uphold the law.
The beauty of Red Bull is that the caffeine keeps you just above "stupor" level, so that you may continue to consume alcohol in vast quantites without passing out. Everyone knows that if you're passed out on the floor in a pool of your own vomit, you can't consume any more alcoholic beverages.
If Red Bull kills the occasional party animal, that makes it no less useful to the rest of us who are still alive enough to drink.
(Though, I'll be taking it easy on the Red Devils for a while.)
EnGl1$h N4Z1z StR1K3!!!
Error: "There are who sorts of code."
Correction: "There are two sorts of code."
"Don't worry, it could happen to anyone. Have a nice day." --The GEICO Gecko
If you use definitions 1 or 3 from dictionary.com, I agree.
That's because definition #2 is the past tense of "lethal".
"Ed's decision to brake hard while slipping on a patch of ice was lethal."
So, I suppose it should be noted that "lethal", for the purposes of this discussion, means having the ability to cause death.
However, modern firearms and ammunition are designed to be less lethal than they were in the past.
Absolutely not.
Compare a colonial-era musket to a semi-automatic, clip-loading Glock 9mm pistol. With a musket, you have to load black powder, load in your shot, carefully pack the load down into the barrel, aim (making sure not to let the shot roll out of the barrel), and fire. With the modern 9mm, you load the clip, turn off the safety, and fire until you run out of rounds.
Who's designing these non-lethal firearms and ammo? Surely not Glock, Taurus, or Remington. Look at the wide array of armor-piercing
and hollow-point ammo the average person has at their disposal. New firearms are designed to be lighter, higher powered, more accurate, and more reliable. What does all this add up to? Weaponry now is easily many times more lethal than the guns of yesteryear.
Guns are designed as lethal weapons? All guns? Some guns? Which guns?
Guns that are designed to fire little pieces of metal can be considered lethal. Little pieces of metal, when they collide with fleshy matter at high speeds, tend to destroy said matter.
It would be hard to claim that all guns are designed to be lethal weapons. There are a multitude of non-lethal water guns, blackhead guns, and radar guns that are still in production. Just wait until they make you start registering the damn things!
From TheSync's Geeks In Space Page (http://thesync.com/geeks/):
"Geeks in Space" is a nearly-weekly audio show...
There should be a law against putting that much emphasis on the word "nearly".
This is pretty easy to verify. Look for trolls in the really old archives and you won't find anything except the occasional "First Post!".
At the time, what CmdrTaco did to remedy the "problem" was to automatically post "First Post!" messages to all stories when they were first created, then delete the post after a few comments had been logged. Pandora's Box was unfortunatly opened when "moderation" was first introduced. For a while, everyone wondered what all of this "(Score:2)" shit was. Before we knew it, karma was enacted.
Karma was really what killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere of Slashdot. Eventually, everyone was always pissed off because someone failed to see the humor in their "m1Cr0SofT SuX" post, didn't like their NetBSD evangelism, or thought they said "fuck" too much.
Now, I doubt even HAL could figure out a way to get rid of all of the trolls. Looking at Slashdot's noise problem, it almost makes me yen to go back to the glory days of USENET.
In the beginning, Slashdot used to be utopia.
Ah. More brilliance brought to us by way of "the nation's #1 on-line service, America On-Line!"
You're a stooge. Here's why:
Acme Rent-A-Car was told that they could not extort money from their customers and justify these actions with a poorly worded contract. This court decision doesn't exonerate speeders in way, they are still subject to the same laws and enforcement that they have always been subjected to.
Liberals love scoundrels, cheats, con men and liars.
Conservatives eat babies, don't pay their taxes, smoke crack, and eat at IHOP.
It's obvious that you have no real argumentative abilities, so you're trying to turn this into right-wing vs. left-wing politics. I'll bet you stole this garbage verbatim from late-night AM radio. Your partisan rambling does not apply here.
If liberals so identified with cheats, they would be backing Acme Rent-A-Car here, as they were the only ones who were doing any cheating through this whole ordeal.
The obvious solution will be for private citizens to be armed in their cars. [...] The Left Wing's answer is...to force everyone else to be a vulnerable... (gun control being one example).
The reason that there is gun control legislation on the books is to keep trigger-happy maniacs such as yourself from owning a firearm.
There are over 40k traffic fatalities a year. You have no right to put my life in danger just because you are too much of a brat to obey the law. I, on the other hand, have a perfect right to defend myself...
No, you don't have the right to "defend yourself" against the possibility of being injured on the highways, especially if doing so endangers other drivers. If you have a problem with the way everybody else drives, get off the road.
The trouble you're having is you.
I see a few issues here: I used to be a traffic cop.
I see one, too. Bias.
Acme was probably doing this in order to whore karma with their insurer.
There's no proof of this. The only thing that we can be sure about is that the contract was poorly worded, and it is likely this was done intentionally to keep the renter from putting a certain two contractual obligations together, allowing the company to reap the benefits of the increased income by way of the "violation fee". (See below for the article quote.)
It's just a civil claim that the customer behaved unlawfully or dangerously with rented property, in violation of a rental agreement.
No, the fines were not "civil claims", they were undisclosed charges against the renter's credit card that cannot be disputed. Acme Rent-A-Car was not operating in the legal system to collect these fines.
No biggie if someone can take the three minutes to actually read the contract before signing it.
The problem is that Acme was not forthcoming with this information. You would known this if you had read the article...
On its contracts, Acme states that "vehicles driven in excess of posted speed limit will be charged a $150 fee per occurrence. All our vehicles are GPS equipped." Turner, and many other customers, didn't connect the two statements, and paid for it later.
Clearly, Acme was doing noting more than trying to harvest revenue by cloudily wording their contract to sucker renters into the $150 fee.
To The Consumers: The quickest way to halt these invasive practices is to boycott the companies that attempt to implement them. Vote with your dollar to save your privacy.
In Virginia, radar detectors are illegal.
I sure don't remember seeing any "little posts" that emitted RF. Besides, this scheme wouldn't make much difference as most residents of VA don't have radar detectors of any type.
Got a reference?
Basing traffic fines on a driver's income has already been done in Finland. A "dot com" millionaire, driving dangerously in his Ferrari, was fined the equivilant of $44,100US.
Check out the story.
You think that this is an original idea?
If SlashdotLaw.org sounds cool, you should check out OpenLaw. From what I can see, they're doing pretty much the same thing that our friend the Anonymous Slashdot Troll suggested. They've got links to information and discussion boards for conversing on the details of active lawsuits.
ph33r mY 3lit3 l4w sK1llZ!
[Moderators: Think twice about that "Overrated" option, this post is 100% on-topic.]
Exactly, and that is where the DeCSS fiasco may die, if we only let it.
If the DeCSS fiasco was simply a matter of "letting it die", the issue would have been dead for months now.
People are stupid enough to associate with libdvdcss with "illegal" when they hear people asking "Is that illegal?"
Well, I never said "Is that illegal?"
IanCarlson: I'm not sure as to the legality of this.
All this means is that the legality should be looked into futher. I sure do hope that the code doesn't infringe on the intellectual property rights of a company in the MPAA, but if it does, it should be noted for the record.
It is silly to think that if you don't question the software's legality, the MPAA lawyers won't either.
Well, it's an open-source method of transparently extracting DVD data probably based on DeCSS. Last time I checked, 2600 lost their DeCSS case to the MPAA and unfortunately were forced to remove their links to the DeCSS code.
Of course the question here is, "Is it legal?" I didn't even infer it was illegal, I just wanted to know how close to illegal it is, or if there was some kind of legislation in France that permitted this sort of thing. If "people" are stupid enough to associate "libdvdcss" with "illegal" just because of something they read on Slashdot, they'll also believe that Natalie Portman has been petrified, everyone should have grits in their pants, and that all your base are belong to CATS.
WARNING: Slashdot is for entertainment purposes only. Any information found on these message boards is probably partially incorrect, mostly incorrect, or completely fabricated. As a matter of fact, you've probably just imagined the whole Slashdot thing. Go home now.
How'd you do on the reading comprehension section of the SAT?
Well above average. [ *Cough, Kissmyass, Cough* ]
I am happy when [...] someone's financial interest is aligned with my own personal interest. This is one of those cases.
The byproduct of this greed is not safety. The rental car company won't divulge the fact that the car fines you for going over 90 when you rent it, so people who were going to drive that fast will do so anyway and be hit with the fines when they bring the car back. The device doesn't stop the rental car driver from going over 90MPH; those drivers who are hazards are going to continue to be hazards. If you don't go over 90MPH anyway, this has little to no effect on you, you'll be just as safe as before.
In reality, you probably won't notice any difference in quality between a car that has gone 90MPH on the freeway versus one that hasn't. Chances are there's been more damage done to the car on broken city asphalt than anywhere else.
So where is the safety gain? There isn't one. The car itself is just as safe/dangerous as it always has been, it's just now the rental car company has stuffed pockets from all of those $150 infraction fees. A fine of $150 per instance far from coincides with "raised insurance rates", which you've attempted to justify this with.
How can you be against getting Big Brother out of the passenger seat?
I am glad to see someone looking out for my safety, even if it is just because it coincides with their economic situation.
They are not looking out for your safety, they're looking out solely for their pocketbook and nothing more. If you think that this is being done to help the consumer in some way, you're mistaken. The company implemented this system so they could harvest scads of cash off of their customers turned traffic convicts.
You don't have the right to debate the rental company's fines; this is worse than an actual police ticketing. With no way to dispute these speeding accusations, the company knows that you'll pay exactly what they ask or they'll attack you with contractual fine print. At $150 per "violation", this sure does make for quite a lucrative opportunity.
Benjamin Franklin said on the topic, "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
You are giving up your right to privacy just to feel a little safer. By Ben's standards, you don't deserve either.