You acknowledge that your scheme would require forcible redistribution of wealth, but that would violate, at a minimum, articles 12 and 17 of the Universal Declaration.
The United Nations is the closest thing we have to an international law making body
No, they really aren't. There's plenty of actual international law out there which has nothing to do with the UN. Plus, the UN doesn't make law. The UN is probably the furthest thing we have from an international law making body.
Are you really thinking that a sum of money is worth any health and/or life? Told you..that's scary.
Apparantly these voluteers think there is a sum of money worth their lives. Either they are right, or they are stupid. Which is it?
Here, you are saying that some people are useless? Well I can tell you, with such a thinking, YOU ARE USELESS. At least for me.
The old guy on the corner on my way home is useless. He might have had a use once, but now he just stands there all day, drinking and pissing himself. How is that useful? OTOH, if he donates his body to science, so med students can disect him to learn about anatomy, that would be a useful contribution to society.
So, are you willing to bite the bullet and take one for humanity? If not, you shouldn't expect anyone else too.
I don't "expect" anyone to do anything they don't choose to do. I'm sure they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because what they are getting is of greater value to them than what they are giving up.
This is another example of countries in Europe and North America benefitting from someone else's suffering.
Bullshit. This is an example of Europe and North Americans compensating someone else for their (potential) suffering. If these people are rational actors, then they wouldn't be volunteering if it didn't leave them better off. Don't impose your values on someone else.
Please explain how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is anything like international law. Then please explain what the declaration has to do with your statement, "there would be no rich, no poor, no trade, no money, and no caste system." There's nothing in the declaration about eliminating the rich*, or social strata in general. Yes, elevating the poor, but not eliminating wealth.
*Of course not, those who wrote it would find that very uncomfortable.
What's callous about that? Why is living off the fruits of other's labor more diginified than voluntarily sleeping with strangers for money? At least hookers add some value to the world and profit from their own labor.
And yet, if it were up to people like you, you would deny them even this opportunity and make their lives even worse.
If it were up to people like "Marxist Hacker", the government would give these people a job in a chair factory making 5 chairs (no more, no less) a day, and they would get the same one bedroom apartment and potato soup that everyone else got. Then he would say that they were the ones who were truly "free" because they were not burdened with the competition for material things.
Watch my family starve to death or be a research subject, doesn't seem like a tough choice to me. But then again, I wasn't raised to expect anyone but me to take care of me, and my parents never led me to believe that life was fair. Others have a different world view.
Yeah, the link in my post says otherwise. So does the link in your post. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is even more narrow than the implied warranty of merchantability.
Buying hard drives from Best Buy is a different story, because Best Buy is a merchant. If you buy a hard drive from Best Buy, you probably get a warrantly of merchantability, but you still won't get a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
The point is, when a person sells an object, it's understood that the object works.
There's a reason why law school consists of more than reading a law dictionary. Unless the seller was a "merchant[1]" there's likely no implied warranty of merchantability[2].
Not really. They have to prove that you copied a bunch of music. That you were legally entitled to is a defense and you'll have to prove it. Look at it this way, if they were to take you to court and demonstrate that you had downloaded 300 CD's worth of music from p2p, and you said nothing in your defense, you would lose.
What makes you think they would advertise one thing and do another? If your SLA says you get x throughput that's what they'll give you. I've never seen an SLA that covered connectivity off of the provider's network, but it's possible that someone has negotiated one. In any case, most SLA's only apply to your traffic while it is in the provider's net.
Tthe United States Government has always and will always regulate commerce in the United States. I'm sure you have a similar arrangement with your government down in the land of reverse flushing toilets.
Well, I found this map and these which seem to suggest that even spanish speakers refer to the continents as north and south america. And of course, I did limit my comment to English speakers, which should include all of/. readers.
Because EULAs are bad and the GPL is good. In the same way that copyright infringement isn't stealing, until someone infringes on GPL's code, the thieving bastards!
Really? I think your map is broken. The continent of "America" isn't on any modern map I can find. However, "The United States of America" is on all of them. I defy you to find one educated english speaker in the world who doesn't know that "America" and "The United States of America" are used interchangeably.
I have no objections if the US rules that porn sites hosted in their own country have to be under.xxx, but any kind of global enforcement (especially since the question of exactly what constitutes porn has a very different answer in differnt parts of the world) is just not on!
It was the current US DoC that was opposed to he creation of the.xxx TLD. It was other countries (read Canadians) that wanted it.
IF you're at home, and your VOIP is properly configured with your address, then VOIP 911 is just as good as the POTS.
No, it really isn't. If you dial 911 from your home phone, your address will appear on the dispatcher's screen at the 911 call center, before he even answers the phone, and before you say anything. If you call 911 from a VoIP phone (if it even works) that isn't enabled for E911, you will be directed to a generic number in a call center, somewhere near where you are. The dispatcher will not have any information transmitted to him.
Generic 911 from a VoIP line is not as good as 911 from a POTS line. If it were, this discussion, article, Slashdot post, and FCC regulation would be moot, wouldn't they?
Your paranoid elusion aside, real people have died because they tried to call 911 using a VoIP carrier. Great, you're savvy enough not to use that phone, but is your kid? Your wife? Your neighbor who finds you lying unconcious on the floor of your kitchen?
Slashdot Mirror
You gonna pay for my ticket? I mean, I deserve it don't I?
You acknowledge that your scheme would require forcible redistribution of wealth, but that would violate, at a minimum, articles 12 and 17 of the Universal Declaration.
The United Nations is the closest thing we have to an international law making body
No, they really aren't. There's plenty of actual international law out there which has nothing to do with the UN. Plus, the UN doesn't make law. The UN is probably the furthest thing we have from an international law making body.
Are you really thinking that a sum of money is worth any health and/or life? Told you..that's scary.
Apparantly these voluteers think there is a sum of money worth their lives. Either they are right, or they are stupid. Which is it?
Here, you are saying that some people are useless? Well I can tell you, with such a thinking, YOU ARE USELESS. At least for me.
The old guy on the corner on my way home is useless. He might have had a use once, but now he just stands there all day, drinking and pissing himself. How is that useful? OTOH, if he donates his body to science, so med students can disect him to learn about anatomy, that would be a useful contribution to society.
Coercion by definition also requires that there is exactly one way out (the coerced action) of your position.
Not everyone in the US has article 24-27 rights, so when are you starting the "civil war"? Or are you just planning to leave?
So, are you willing to bite the bullet and take one for humanity? If not, you shouldn't expect anyone else too.
I don't "expect" anyone to do anything they don't choose to do. I'm sure they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because what they are getting is of greater value to them than what they are giving up.
This is another example of countries in Europe and North America benefitting from someone else's suffering.
Bullshit. This is an example of Europe and North Americans compensating someone else for their (potential) suffering. If these people are rational actors, then they wouldn't be volunteering if it didn't leave them better off. Don't impose your values on someone else.
Please explain how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is anything like international law. Then please explain what the declaration has to do with your statement, "there would be no rich, no poor, no trade, no money, and no caste system." There's nothing in the declaration about eliminating the rich*, or social strata in general. Yes, elevating the poor, but not eliminating wealth.
*Of course not, those who wrote it would find that very uncomfortable.
What's callous about that? Why is living off the fruits of other's labor more diginified than voluntarily sleeping with strangers for money? At least hookers add some value to the world and profit from their own labor.
And yet, if it were up to people like you, you would deny them even this opportunity and make their lives even worse.
If it were up to people like "Marxist Hacker", the government would give these people a job in a chair factory making 5 chairs (no more, no less) a day, and they would get the same one bedroom apartment and potato soup that everyone else got. Then he would say that they were the ones who were truly "free" because they were not burdened with the competition for material things.
Watch my family starve to death or be a research subject, doesn't seem like a tough choice to me. But then again, I wasn't raised to expect anyone but me to take care of me, and my parents never led me to believe that life was fair. Others have a different world view.
Yeah, the link in my post says otherwise. So does the link in your post. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is even more narrow than the implied warranty of merchantability.
Buying hard drives from Best Buy is a different story, because Best Buy is a merchant. If you buy a hard drive from Best Buy, you probably get a warrantly of merchantability, but you still won't get a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
The point is, when a person sells an object, it's understood that the object works.
Caveat emptor.
That's usually true, but if you paid through paypal, paypal will get pissed off and may close your account.
There's a reason why law school consists of more than reading a law dictionary. Unless the seller was a "merchant[1]" there's likely no implied warranty of merchantability[2].
[1]UCC 2-104(1)
[2]UCC 2-314(1)
Not really. They have to prove that you copied a bunch of music. That you were legally entitled to is a defense and you'll have to prove it. Look at it this way, if they were to take you to court and demonstrate that you had downloaded 300 CD's worth of music from p2p, and you said nothing in your defense, you would lose.
Do you want to have to prove that you own each one of the CD's you get accused of downloading?
What makes you think they would advertise one thing and do another? If your SLA says you get x throughput that's what they'll give you. I've never seen an SLA that covered connectivity off of the provider's network, but it's possible that someone has negotiated one. In any case, most SLA's only apply to your traffic while it is in the provider's net.
Tthe United States Government has always and will always regulate commerce in the United States. I'm sure you have a similar arrangement with your government down in the land of reverse flushing toilets.
Well, I found this map and these which seem to suggest that even spanish speakers refer to the continents as north and south america. And of course, I did limit my comment to English speakers, which should include all of /. readers.
BTW, how is the GPL *not* an EULA?
Because EULAs are bad and the GPL is good. In the same way that copyright infringement isn't stealing, until someone infringes on GPL's code, the thieving bastards!
Duh.
Really? I think your map is broken. The continent of "America" isn't on any modern map I can find. However, "The United States of America" is on all of them. I defy you to find one educated english speaker in the world who doesn't know that "America" and "The United States of America" are used interchangeably.
I have no objections if the US rules that porn sites hosted in their own country have to be under .xxx, but any kind of global enforcement (especially since the question of exactly what constitutes porn has a very different answer in differnt parts of the world) is just not on!
.xxx TLD. It was other countries (read Canadians) that wanted it.
It was the current US DoC that was opposed to he creation of the
IF you're at home, and your VOIP is properly configured with your address, then VOIP 911 is just as good as the POTS.
No, it really isn't. If you dial 911 from your home phone, your address will appear on the dispatcher's screen at the 911 call center, before he even answers the phone, and before you say anything. If you call 911 from a VoIP phone (if it even works) that isn't enabled for E911, you will be directed to a generic number in a call center, somewhere near where you are. The dispatcher will not have any information transmitted to him.
Generic 911 from a VoIP line is not as good as 911 from a POTS line. If it were, this discussion, article, Slashdot post, and FCC regulation would be moot, wouldn't they?
You think that in every situation where you need to dial 911, you will be able to speak? That's a good one!
Your paranoid elusion aside, real people have died because they tried to call 911 using a VoIP carrier. Great, you're savvy enough not to use that phone, but is your kid? Your wife? Your neighbor who finds you lying unconcious on the floor of your kitchen?