People are lazy. I know I am! If It doesn't need encryption, why encrypt it?
Then again I have the root password on my linux box set to a single character, so maybe I'm too lazy.
That's why Jefferson advocated revolution every 20 years. You give a group of people too long in power and the laws meant to protect the people from the government instead protect the government from the people.
The bill of rights is not for the rights of the people, instead it is to limit the rights of the government. Look at the wording.
Look at Russia. They went from a monarchy where the ruling class lived in luxury while the peasants lived as peasants. Then they moved to communism where the ruling class changed, but now they also controlled every aspect of society 'for the good of the people' while the workers lived as peasants. Then they changed to democracy. Wohoo. Now the ruling class was still living in luxury, the common citizens were still living in the same general conditions.
The problem comes when the ruling class in whatever form of government uses their power to keep themselves as the ruling class. In a monarchy you kill anyone who opposes you. In communism you kill anyone who opposes you and teach everyone why you are doing everything for their own good. In democracy you enact laws to keep yourself and your buddies wealthy and in positions of power.
Democracy != Capitalism that's the problem. Look at the RIAA for example. The free market and capitalism dictate that the RIAA should not exist anymore. Their market strategies are outdated, they overcharge for their product, and they tell the consumer what to purchase by controlling what reaches radio. They survive because they have laws enacted to protect their wealth. When people/companies use the government to be their strong arm to squash the competition everyone loses.
Out of all of this, only democracy gives the citizens a voice to change the ruling class, all other forms of government require revolution. And although much bad is said about capitalism, name me another system where at it's pure form the individual is rewarded for productivity and punished for laziness.
This software company for whatever reason does not feel comfortable using the software under the existing licence. It doesn't matter if they are afraid to get sued later or whatnot. Contacting the author of the code and requesting to license it for a commercial endeavor is the right thing to do. They should be commended for their effort, but for some reason most of the comments are chastising them for it. I say good on them.
I remember a story from almost 10 years back that you could buy a Mig-21 for $14k as is or around $100k restored and made legal. The cost wasn't in the aircraft itself, but the maintenance to keep it flying. Still waiting to get my own F-14.
"Anything considered pornographic will require the user to bring a letter of guarantee to the local public security bureau promising to never again send such messages before service can be reactivated."
So what has to happen to get your service back if you protest the government?
The RIAA can't legally do this because I already have a patent on:
'A technique for alienating your consumers by persecuting them.' US Patent 3,141,592
So I will charge a licensing fee of a modest 1 million dollars for every potential user of every ISP that uses this. Or approximately the population of the earth^3 million dollars.
Now I'm worried they may use it anyway, so I've already applied to have a tax instituted in Europe to make up for the losses of every potential infringement on my patent.
Ahh, but if a similar study was published against republicans it would be unbiased and informative about misuse of statistics.
Here's an easy test for political bias. If a news agency lists a politician involved in a scandal and does not report (or buried in the story.) the political affiliation of the politician they are of party X. If the news agency blankets the story with party connections including ties to prominent political figures they are of party Y. Read/Watch for a while and you will quickly be able to fill in the X and the Y for most media outlets.
My point is that in 90 years the entire cityscape will change. I'm not saying it isn't worth doing. I'm just saying that by just reading the headline you get the impression that radical things need to be done NOW and in a PANIC. The things proposed are not radical, and no need to panic.
Compared to New Orleans. They did have issues with low lying areas and they ignored them for years. In that case it was time to act now and in a panic, but the panic only happened after hurricane Katrina.
I'm not advocating ignoring the problem, but just saying "Don't Panic."
Not necessarily. Rise in sea level can also be caused by a sinking landmass. Yes this isn't a global rise in sea level, but I don't think a person living in it cares about the distinction.
Ok, so the scenario is based on 90 years in the future assuming a continuing sea level increase. So by 90 years in the future there will need to be either a movement of cities, or a man made defense for floods in place.
Yup, this is front page material worthy of a panic. Thanks BBC.
You are proving my point. 9/11 was it. Underpants and shoes didn't work - they weren't good enough.
It was proven BTW that both explosives were enough to take down a jet liner. The fact that they failed due to design flaws or improper training does not negate the threat.
Don't try to play that game. Absence of evidence is not evidence. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - every single indicted terrorist plotter in the US has been a total incompetent.
Funny thing about suicide bombers, when they are competent they are not available to stand trial. Are you upset that the 9/11 hijackers were not given a fair trial?
Slashdot Mirror
People are lazy. I know I am! If It doesn't need encryption, why encrypt it? Then again I have the root password on my linux box set to a single character, so maybe I'm too lazy.
That's why Jefferson advocated revolution every 20 years. You give a group of people too long in power and the laws meant to protect the people from the government instead protect the government from the people. The bill of rights is not for the rights of the people, instead it is to limit the rights of the government. Look at the wording.
"Hey baby wanna drive a car on Mars?" is not an appropriate use of scientific equipment.
Look at Russia. They went from a monarchy where the ruling class lived in luxury while the peasants lived as peasants. Then they moved to communism where the ruling class changed, but now they also controlled every aspect of society 'for the good of the people' while the workers lived as peasants. Then they changed to democracy. Wohoo. Now the ruling class was still living in luxury, the common citizens were still living in the same general conditions.
The problem comes when the ruling class in whatever form of government uses their power to keep themselves as the ruling class. In a monarchy you kill anyone who opposes you. In communism you kill anyone who opposes you and teach everyone why you are doing everything for their own good. In democracy you enact laws to keep yourself and your buddies wealthy and in positions of power.
Democracy != Capitalism that's the problem. Look at the RIAA for example. The free market and capitalism dictate that the RIAA should not exist anymore. Their market strategies are outdated, they overcharge for their product, and they tell the consumer what to purchase by controlling what reaches radio. They survive because they have laws enacted to protect their wealth. When people/companies use the government to be their strong arm to squash the competition everyone loses.
Out of all of this, only democracy gives the citizens a voice to change the ruling class, all other forms of government require revolution. And although much bad is said about capitalism, name me another system where at it's pure form the individual is rewarded for productivity and punished for laziness.
This software company for whatever reason does not feel comfortable using the software under the existing licence. It doesn't matter if they are afraid to get sued later or whatnot. Contacting the author of the code and requesting to license it for a commercial endeavor is the right thing to do. They should be commended for their effort, but for some reason most of the comments are chastising them for it. I say good on them.
Guess they were using a different kind of rocket fuel.
I remember a story from almost 10 years back that you could buy a Mig-21 for $14k as is or around $100k restored and made legal. The cost wasn't in the aircraft itself, but the maintenance to keep it flying. Still waiting to get my own F-14.
"Anything considered pornographic will require the user to bring a letter of guarantee to the local public security bureau promising to never again send such messages before service can be reactivated." So what has to happen to get your service back if you protest the government?
The RIAA can't legally do this because I already have a patent on: 'A technique for alienating your consumers by persecuting them.' US Patent 3,141,592 So I will charge a licensing fee of a modest 1 million dollars for every potential user of every ISP that uses this. Or approximately the population of the earth^3 million dollars. Now I'm worried they may use it anyway, so I've already applied to have a tax instituted in Europe to make up for the losses of every potential infringement on my patent.
Ahh, but if a similar study was published against republicans it would be unbiased and informative about misuse of statistics. Here's an easy test for political bias. If a news agency lists a politician involved in a scandal and does not report (or buried in the story.) the political affiliation of the politician they are of party X. If the news agency blankets the story with party connections including ties to prominent political figures they are of party Y. Read/Watch for a while and you will quickly be able to fill in the X and the Y for most media outlets.
My point is that in 90 years the entire cityscape will change. I'm not saying it isn't worth doing. I'm just saying that by just reading the headline you get the impression that radical things need to be done NOW and in a PANIC. The things proposed are not radical, and no need to panic. Compared to New Orleans. They did have issues with low lying areas and they ignored them for years. In that case it was time to act now and in a panic, but the panic only happened after hurricane Katrina. I'm not advocating ignoring the problem, but just saying "Don't Panic."
Not necessarily. Rise in sea level can also be caused by a sinking landmass. Yes this isn't a global rise in sea level, but I don't think a person living in it cares about the distinction.
Ok, so the scenario is based on 90 years in the future assuming a continuing sea level increase. So by 90 years in the future there will need to be either a movement of cities, or a man made defense for floods in place. Yup, this is front page material worthy of a panic. Thanks BBC.
You are proving my point. 9/11 was it. Underpants and shoes didn't work - they weren't good enough.
It was proven BTW that both explosives were enough to take down a jet liner. The fact that they failed due to design flaws or improper training does not negate the threat.
Don't try to play that game. Absence of evidence is not evidence. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - every single indicted terrorist plotter in the US has been a total incompetent.
Funny thing about suicide bombers, when they are competent they are not available to stand trial. Are you upset that the 9/11 hijackers were not given a fair trial?