An entitity choosing not to receive a message is not censorship, it is the entity exercising its right to choose what it receives.
Technically speaking, consent is not an issue. If a receiving entity R appoints an entity C to filter or delete messages from sending entities Ss based on content or origin, entity C is censoring information from entities Ss.
You cannot cry censorship with one breath while advocating stripping any entity of its right to choose what communications it receives with the other. That is logically and ethically inconsistent.
But I don't advocate that at all. What I'm implying is that sensorship isn't always a bad thing, and free speech is not always a good thing. One could judge this morally flawed (depending on ones personal morals), but it certainly has sound logic and is ethically consistent: If you consider some kind of speech (like inciting a hate crime) to be intolerable, you're not finished by punishing people who publicly produce such speech; you must also censor the media or you (and the media) are helping to spread an intolerable message. Consent of the public is implied here by putting those limitations to free speech in to law.
Spam is not (yet) illegal and could perhaps be free speech, but I do think it should be the right of the public to not receive spam by appointing a censor, so they don't have to filter and throw away the junk themselves. Confusing? I don't think so.
How many recipients really consented to this?... If just one member wanted to receive an email that was blocked by a blacklist, you are violating their rights to receive it and censoring the sender.
The important thing here is contract, the formal agreement the customer has reached with the ISP. If the ISP states it reserves the right to block UCE and remove viruses from emails and the customer agrees by signing the contract, then obviously the ISP isn't doing anything wrong when it actually does block UCE or removes a virus. If this was illegal then you should also be able to sue cyberpatrol or netnanny for blocking your porn.
The reality of the situation (despite conspiracy theories otherwise) is that most opt-in and opt-out based companies honor opt-out requests. Why? Because you are more of a hassle to them on their lists than you are off of them.
That's all true for some massmailing companies, but you fail to recognize there is a lot of guys out there trying to make a quick buck. Chances are you've recieved some of their UCE: they try to sell you cds with millions of email addresses they collected themselves; or when they work for other companies their spam is unusable because it contains broken links only.
Take this as an example: I used to receive on average 80 advertising emails per day on my Yahoo account. Today I receive only 2-3 per week. Why? Because I used the opt-out links.
Then you're very lucky. I experimented with opt-out myself on a throwaway account, and initially the number of spams dropped on that account, but then it climbed out of all proportions. I guess it ended up on a spammer-cd, because I got mail in languages I can't even read.
Accept it: the internet does not exist as it did in 1990, when there was no commercial email. I was there in 1990 before all of this. It was nice to find research information from universities, but face it: so much of what exists now because of commercial entities was not there. If your goal is the decommercializing of the internet, you will fail.
The internet is most certainly not financed by commercial email. It's true it's partly financed banner-ads and in even larger part by porn, but I guess that's not the same guys trying to sell me viagra illegally. (Because you can only get viagra legally if it's perscripted to you by a doctor around where I live.)
Yahoo, Slashdot, etc can not provide the services they provide unless they at least break even. Advertising allows them to do this without charging you.
Yes, but on the other hand I never recieved UCE from slashdot or yahoo, I just watch their banners.
Censorship implies you prevent someone from speaking to the world, usually based on what they have to say.
The real goal of censorship is to prevent the world (or the targetted audience) from hearing your speech. There are different ways of achieving this goal:
prevent the speaker from speaking in public
prevent the audience from getting the message
prevent the message from reaching the audience
The 3rd option is most popular in modern western culture: to use the 1st option you often have to imprison or kill the speaker, to use the 2nd option you have to have farreaching (repressive) control over each individual in the audience.
I'm not sure it can be correctly called censorship - that requires a governmental entity.
Censorship is the act of censoring, which is defined as surpressing or deleting anything objectionable. It's mostly done by governments, but that's not a requirement. (Religious organisations often censor their own holy texts.)
As such, any entity or organisation relaying information between the producers and consumers of that information has the capability of censoring this information.
If an ISP blocks or alters emails (to remove virusses), it is censoring email. This censoring is done with the consent of the recipients; the recipients can move to an other ISP if they don't like the censorship policy. This is the big difference with government censorship: you have a choice of getting your information from somewhere else.
In the workplace, an employee is in agreement with his employer to only recieve emails relevant to his job, so there is an issue of consent also. If the employee doesn't like it, he's got the choice of quitting his job.
So it's definitely censorship, but it's on a voluntary basis.
Be assured, this is not about security, it is about control.
Yeah, here is my scenario. They'll put some shitty encryption on the data or login sequence, and wait until some 3rd party cracks it and puts out an "unauthorized" client. Then, perhaps after waiting just a little longer, they'll sue the authors and as much "unauthorized" users as possible.
(If the *AA and SCO can get away with it, why shouldn't MS.)
I know it is common practice, and I know the result of the assignment is evaluated as a conditional; I just somehow missed the bp++ in the do loop. I already figured out I was wrong, see the reply I wrote to my own post.
(I've been programming C for about 12 years; I started programming about 20 years ago.)
A very wrong assignment (= instead of ==). This makes the do loop end after just one iteration, because bp->m_size == 0 when this loop runs.
Does SCO really want us to believe this is in a working kernel (theirs or ours)? It won't even compile, let alone do what it should do. Even if these typos where introduced when making the sheets, it doesn't make them look like credible evidence.
I know. The point is why are you banned if you're not doing anything against the rules? Answer: simply because you cost the casino too much money.
The logical step for the casino to take would be not to offer games that make them lose money; not to ban people who are good at those particular games. Nobody forces a casino to offer blackjack after all.
As it stands now, there is a large discrepancy between the customers' objectives and the casino's rules. One can safely assume most customers play the games a casino offers to win as much money possible. The casino on the other hand states this behaviour is not accepted. That's just absurd.
If you want to earn money by housing a gambling game you should accept the odds, not make up rules to change the odds even more to your favor. (This is even illegal in some countries, and I argue rightly so.)
Simply put, if a casino or gambling house changes the rules of blackjack so card counting is no longer allowed, they shouldn't be allowed to still call the game "blackjack", because its got different rules. Also, if you want to cheat on your customers by changing the odds, you should be bound by law to inform those customers of your intent before you invite them to play your game.
Conan was a wimp. If anything, Otzi would have put it like Genghis did some 4600 years later:
"Man's greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, and use the bodies of his women." -- Genghis Khan
This implicates all chimera males would have Klinefelter's syndrome and as a consequence would be incapable of producing sperm and suffer gynecomastia (have breasts). This is of course not very screwy.
Please, please leave the narco-drip in place, it was installed in the coffee machine on purpose. The effect isn't complete until they try to sue God for copyright enfringement during creation (days I - V verbatim copying, day VI a derivative work).
That's a potent mixture they're on and you're starting to see how it makes them act already, so don't fool around with it. You can't sell it either because your customers would sue the hell out of you when they get high on it.
Trust us discordians on this one and stay tuned for some more good laughs, the best is still to come yet.
You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.
So why is SCO treatening to sue me? I didn't steal anything, I bought a product from a distributor and at the time I did not have a probable indication of parts of the product being stolen. How am I liable for this supposed theft?
Maybe I'm driving the point home, maybe not. The point I was trying to make is that not every religion starts out as a means to control a society. The original poster seems to suggest that is the only other reason possible for the existence of a religion if it isn't inspired by a God.
What I say is it's likely this kind of inspiration isn't from God at all but something we produce ourselves, but there definitely is some kind of revelations/inspiration going on, so it's not all crap.
(c) There are processes in the brain that, under the right circumstances, cause people to have visions, revelations, out-of-body experiences and a truckload more of experiences we call "spiritual". Some of the people who have those experiences record them and/or become prophets, who sometimes start new religions.
People like Michael Persinger have done a lot of studies on this recently. Persinger is even capable of inducing some of these effects -under laboratory conditions- by stimulating the brain by magnetic fields (with the so called Perisinger helmet). He can make you have a God experience which people who have these experiences without the magnetic stimulation consider authentic.
Now what is more plausible, concidering (b) makes everyone who says he has such spiritual experiences a lier with a desire to control society?
int * const bar; I think I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Is it about declaring pointers to constants? Then you've got two options: const int *bar; or int const *bar; These declarations are completely equivalent, so which one you use comes down to personal preference or your employer's coding style guidelines. Starting discussions about which one is better is a rathole.
As long as you keep one variable declaration per line, nothing will go wrong. But again, I think I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
I very much enjoyed your phrasing about C not being about bondage and discipline.
I can't take the credit for that, it's hacker slang. If you don't know the jargon file yet, click the Home link on that page and enjoy. There are lots of awesome and/or funny annectotes in it too, like the story of Mel.
int foo, flash, up, left;
int *bar, *bang, *down, *right;
Or even better:
int foo;
int flash;
int up;
int left;
int *bar;
int *bang;
int *down;
int *right;
Just because a language allows a construct doesn't mean you have to use it. This is a coding-style argument, which are of course all subjective.
I can never define any sort of function pointer in one line: I always have to typedef tthe function and then have a pointer to it. While I can work out, with a manual in hand, how to do it in one line, the syntax is so unintuitive that I never do it: I will just have to reach for the manual again wh
en I maintain it.
This is a valid problem that has to do with operator precedence. In C the operator precedence is arranged in such a way most commonly used expressions can be written without a lot of brackets. I think this is more convenient, because normally you don't define a lot of function pointers, but you do use at least some pointer arithmetics.
The mistake I would junk is allowing enum {fred=36, bill=19, joe=333} ; Which confuses predefined constants with the classic enumeration.
A constant in C is not the same as an enum. Simply put constants are addressable, enum items are not. One could choose to introduce yet another construct for unaddressable constants, but this is far more practical.
And again, you don't have to use every feature in a language just to make your code more interesting. C was designed as a language-of-choice, not as a bondage-and-discipline language. If you don't like your freedom, don't use it, but please don't start whining you've got too much freedom.
Some problems with that: Arthur is not a rebel/outlaw story, the anti-hero isn't in the same camp as the hero in Arthur, where is Parsival in B7? etc. etc.
Yes, there are some similarities, but that's unavoidable, there is a lot of stores and myths around. What's really interresting about B7 is how Avon, the anti-hero, comes out to be the most popular character in the series. In fact Terri Nation (the author) was aware of this and adapted the storyline conformingly.
If you collide two 3k lb cars together at 50 mph, the energy from the collision will cancel and both drivers will come to a dead stop. If, on the other hand, you collide a 10k lb vehicle and a 1k lb vehicle, the 1k lb vehicle will have the lower of the two energies.
I don't dispute that, I don't claim the occupants of the Yugo will still be alive after the crash in my original post. What I say is you buy an illusion of safety by having a higher potential of killing others. To prove it's only an illusion of safety, I suggest colliding two 10k lb cars head-on.
There is more than 3 times as much kinetic energy involved in this crash than there is in the 2x 3k lb crash. If the 10k lb and 3k lb cars have about the same amount of safety measures (like crumple zones etc.) built in, the people in the 2x 10k lb crash will suffer more than 3 times as much harm as the people in the 2x 3k lb crash. I'm grossly oversimplifying, but this is what it comes down to.
The point is you're making the roads unsafer by populating them with ever heavier cars.
Buying a car with the idea of plowing through other cars is an offensive tactic, which only works as long as the car in question is heavier and more ridgid than the average car on the road (and you drive it fast enough). If everyone thinks this way you get a kind of arms race on the roads, which will definitely not make them safer.
If two heavier cars crash there is just more kinetic energy involved and crumple zones can reduce only a certain amount of this energy, so they are inherently more dangerous than crashes between lighter cars.
A thing that mostly gets ignored in these discussions is the damage these heavier cars do to pedestrians and other commuters that aren't particulary well protected. If ma catches a kid on the bull bar of her SUV doing 20 it's comparable to the kid getting hit by compact car doing 35.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically speaking, consent is not an issue. If a receiving entity R appoints an entity C to filter or delete messages from sending entities Ss based on content or origin, entity C is censoring information from entities Ss.
You cannot cry censorship with one breath while advocating stripping any entity of its right to choose what communications it receives with the other. That is logically and ethically inconsistent.
But I don't advocate that at all. What I'm implying is that sensorship isn't always a bad thing, and free speech is not always a good thing. One could judge this morally flawed (depending on ones personal morals), but it certainly has sound logic and is ethically consistent: If you consider some kind of speech (like inciting a hate crime) to be intolerable, you're not finished by punishing people who publicly produce such speech; you must also censor the media or you (and the media) are helping to spread an intolerable message. Consent of the public is implied here by putting those limitations to free speech in to law.
Spam is not (yet) illegal and could perhaps be free speech, but I do think it should be the right of the public to not receive spam by appointing a censor, so they don't have to filter and throw away the junk themselves. Confusing? I don't think so.
The important thing here is contract, the formal agreement the customer has reached with the ISP. If the ISP states it reserves the right to block UCE and remove viruses from emails and the customer agrees by signing the contract, then obviously the ISP isn't doing anything wrong when it actually does block UCE or removes a virus. If this was illegal then you should also be able to sue cyberpatrol or netnanny for blocking your porn.
The reality of the situation (despite conspiracy theories otherwise) is that most opt-in and opt-out based companies honor opt-out requests. Why? Because you are more of a hassle to them on their lists than you are off of them.
That's all true for some massmailing companies, but you fail to recognize there is a lot of guys out there trying to make a quick buck. Chances are you've recieved some of their UCE: they try to sell you cds with millions of email addresses they collected themselves; or when they work for other companies their spam is unusable because it contains broken links only.
Take this as an example: I used to receive on average 80 advertising emails per day on my Yahoo account. Today I receive only 2-3 per week. Why? Because I used the opt-out links.
Then you're very lucky. I experimented with opt-out myself on a throwaway account, and initially the number of spams dropped on that account, but then it climbed out of all proportions. I guess it ended up on a spammer-cd, because I got mail in languages I can't even read.
Accept it: the internet does not exist as it did in 1990, when there was no commercial email. I was there in 1990 before all of this. It was nice to find research information from universities, but face it: so much of what exists now because of commercial entities was not there. If your goal is the decommercializing of the internet, you will fail.
The internet is most certainly not financed by commercial email. It's true it's partly financed banner-ads and in even larger part by porn, but I guess that's not the same guys trying to sell me viagra illegally. (Because you can only get viagra legally if it's perscripted to you by a doctor around where I live.)
Yahoo, Slashdot, etc can not provide the services they provide unless they at least break even. Advertising allows them to do this without charging you.
Yes, but on the other hand I never recieved UCE from slashdot or yahoo, I just watch their banners.
The real goal of censorship is to prevent the world (or the targetted audience) from hearing your speech. There are different ways of achieving this goal:
- prevent the speaker from speaking in public
- prevent the audience from getting the message
- prevent the message from reaching the audience
The 3rd option is most popular in modern western culture: to use the 1st option you often have to imprison or kill the speaker, to use the 2nd option you have to have farreaching (repressive) control over each individual in the audience.Censorship is the act of censoring, which is defined as surpressing or deleting anything objectionable. It's mostly done by governments, but that's not a requirement. (Religious organisations often censor their own holy texts.)
As such, any entity or organisation relaying information between the producers and consumers of that information has the capability of censoring this information.
If an ISP blocks or alters emails (to remove virusses), it is censoring email. This censoring is done with the consent of the recipients; the recipients can move to an other ISP if they don't like the censorship policy. This is the big difference with government censorship: you have a choice of getting your information from somewhere else.
In the workplace, an employee is in agreement with his employer to only recieve emails relevant to his job, so there is an issue of consent also. If the employee doesn't like it, he's got the choice of quitting his job.
So it's definitely censorship, but it's on a voluntary basis.
Yeah, here is my scenario. They'll put some shitty encryption on the data or login sequence, and wait until some 3rd party cracks it and puts out an "unauthorized" client. Then, perhaps after waiting just a little longer, they'll sue the authors and as much "unauthorized" users as possible.
(If the *AA and SCO can get away with it, why shouldn't MS.)
(I've been programming C for about 12 years; I started programming about 20 years ago.)
Oops, made a mistake. The do loop is correct. The syntax error still stands.
Syntax error.
} while ((((bp-1)->m_size) = (bp->m_size)));
A very wrong assignment (= instead of ==). This makes the do loop end after just one iteration, because bp->m_size == 0 when this loop runs.
Does SCO really want us to believe this is in a working kernel (theirs or ours)? It won't even compile, let alone do what it should do. Even if these typos where introduced when making the sheets, it doesn't make them look like credible evidence.
The logical step for the casino to take would be not to offer games that make them lose money; not to ban people who are good at those particular games. Nobody forces a casino to offer blackjack after all.
As it stands now, there is a large discrepancy between the customers' objectives and the casino's rules. One can safely assume most customers play the games a casino offers to win as much money possible. The casino on the other hand states this behaviour is not accepted. That's just absurd.
Then show me the rules that say card counting isn't allowed in blackjack.
Hint: not here, not even in the rules according to the Casino Control Act 1992. As far as I know, no official ruleset says card counting is prohibited, its the casinos that add those "rules".
Simply put, if a casino or gambling house changes the rules of blackjack so card counting is no longer allowed, they shouldn't be allowed to still call the game "blackjack", because its got different rules. Also, if you want to cheat on your customers by changing the odds, you should be bound by law to inform those customers of your intent before you invite them to play your game.
"Man's greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, and use the bodies of his women." -- Genghis Khan
This implicates all chimera males would have Klinefelter's syndrome and as a consequence would be incapable of producing sperm and suffer gynecomastia (have breasts). This is of course not very screwy.
That's a potent mixture they're on and you're starting to see how it makes them act already, so don't fool around with it. You can't sell it either because your customers would sue the hell out of you when they get high on it.
Trust us discordians on this one and stay tuned for some more good laughs, the best is still to come yet.
So why is SCO treatening to sue me? I didn't steal anything, I bought a product from a distributor and at the time I did not have a probable indication of parts of the product being stolen. How am I liable for this supposed theft?
What I say is it's likely this kind of inspiration isn't from God at all but something we produce ourselves, but there definitely is some kind of revelations/inspiration going on, so it's not all crap.
(c) There are processes in the brain that, under the right circumstances, cause people to have visions, revelations, out-of-body experiences and a truckload more of experiences we call "spiritual". Some of the people who have those experiences record them and/or become prophets, who sometimes start new religions.
People like Michael Persinger have done a lot of studies on this recently. Persinger is even capable of inducing some of these effects -under laboratory conditions- by stimulating the brain by magnetic fields (with the so called Perisinger helmet). He can make you have a God experience which people who have these experiences without the magnetic stimulation consider authentic.
Now what is more plausible, concidering (b) makes everyone who says he has such spiritual experiences a lier with a desire to control society?
I think that if I connect a FM modulator to an antenna (or even to some stripped wire), the antenna will function as a (weak) transmitter.
Ah, ok. It's my policy to not argue about coding styles, so I won't ;) I've lost way too much time going down that rathole.
Is it about declaring pointers to constants? Then you've got two options: const int *bar; or int const *bar; These declarations are completely equivalent, so which one you use comes down to personal preference or your employer's coding style guidelines. Starting discussions about which one is better is a rathole.
As long as you keep one variable declaration per line, nothing will go wrong. But again, I think I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
I can't take the credit for that, it's hacker slang. If you don't know the jargon file yet, click the Home link on that page and enjoy. There are lots of awesome and/or funny annectotes in it too, like the story of Mel.
int foo, flash, up, left;
int *bar, *bang, *down, *right;
Or even better:
int foo;
int flash;
int up;
int left;
int *bar;
int *bang;
int *down;
int *right;
Just because a language allows a construct doesn't mean you have to use it. This is a coding-style argument, which are of course all subjective.
I can never define any sort of function pointer in one line: I always have to typedef tthe function and then have a pointer to it. While I can work out, with a manual in hand, how to do it in one line, the syntax is so unintuitive that I never do it: I will just have to reach for the manual again wh en I maintain it.
This is a valid problem that has to do with operator precedence. In C the operator precedence is arranged in such a way most commonly used expressions can be written without a lot of brackets. I think this is more convenient, because normally you don't define a lot of function pointers, but you do use at least some pointer arithmetics.
The mistake I would junk is allowing enum {fred=36, bill=19, joe=333} ; Which confuses predefined constants with the classic enumeration.
A constant in C is not the same as an enum. Simply put constants are addressable, enum items are not. One could choose to introduce yet another construct for unaddressable constants, but this is far more practical.
And again, you don't have to use every feature in a language just to make your code more interesting. C was designed as a language-of-choice, not as a bondage-and-discipline language. If you don't like your freedom, don't use it, but please don't start whining you've got too much freedom.
Yes, there are some similarities, but that's unavoidable, there is a lot of stores and myths around. What's really interresting about B7 is how Avon, the anti-hero, comes out to be the most popular character in the series. In fact Terri Nation (the author) was aware of this and adapted the storyline conformingly.
I don't dispute that, I don't claim the occupants of the Yugo will still be alive after the crash in my original post. What I say is you buy an illusion of safety by having a higher potential of killing others. To prove it's only an illusion of safety, I suggest colliding two 10k lb cars head-on.
There is more than 3 times as much kinetic energy involved in this crash than there is in the 2x 3k lb crash. If the 10k lb and 3k lb cars have about the same amount of safety measures (like crumple zones etc.) built in, the people in the 2x 10k lb crash will suffer more than 3 times as much harm as the people in the 2x 3k lb crash. I'm grossly oversimplifying, but this is what it comes down to.
Buying a car with the idea of plowing through other cars is an offensive tactic, which only works as long as the car in question is heavier and more ridgid than the average car on the road (and you drive it fast enough). If everyone thinks this way you get a kind of arms race on the roads, which will definitely not make them safer.
If two heavier cars crash there is just more kinetic energy involved and crumple zones can reduce only a certain amount of this energy, so they are inherently more dangerous than crashes between lighter cars.
A thing that mostly gets ignored in these discussions is the damage these heavier cars do to pedestrians and other commuters that aren't particulary well protected. If ma catches a kid on the bull bar of her SUV doing 20 it's comparable to the kid getting hit by compact car doing 35.