What does any of that have to do with your privacy. Do you think that the dark glasses makes it difficult for them to recognize you? Probably not if you ALWAYS wear dark glasses. Besides you've already been pegged as "that guy who's afraid of new money." Parking in the back of the lot may keep you away from the cameras, but it won't stop anyone from writing down your license plate number. What exactly are you afraid of?
It really, really, really, really, doesn't matter one whit whether or not the e-voting system is open or not. The "secrets" (i.e., what software is actually loaded on the machines) will always need to be held by some trusted group. The degree to which this group is tursted determinies how much influence they can have. In the paper ballot world, we mitigate risks by partition access that individuals have to ballots into small districts. In the e-voting world there will always be some group that has way to much access for their trust level. That's why e-voting will always be less secure than paper voting.
You quoted the definition, but I'm not sure you read all of it:
Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous. Contrary to conscience, morality,
or law; immoral or wicked. Unfair; unjust.
It's wrong because it's illegal. The rest of your post is gibberish mostly because you seem to be confusing hardware with software and DVD players with computer DVD drives. BTW, there is a manufacturer of MPEG cards that includes a licensed DVD player for Linux. Finding it is left as an exersise for the reader.
You aren't saying that users of Linux would rather use a free tool illegally than pay for one which does the same thing legally are you? I'm shocked. Of course it doesn't make Valenti wrong.
Maybe it's just because I'm not a zealot, but I don't see how that interview makes Valenti look like an idiot. The interviewer doesn't even ask him about fair-use, or any other non-technical questions, he just wants to know why he can't watch DVD's under Linux. Valenti replies that he doesn't know why no one makes a licensed DVD player for Linux, but there must be a good reason. The simple fact is that he's right. Why don't all the bitchers and whiners go out and write a licensed DVD player for Linux and SELL it it? There's such a big market for it, and it should be trivial to write, right?
1. Write licensed Linux DVD player 2. Sell licensed Linux DVD player 3. Profit!!!!
But no one that I know is against artists getting compensated.
But against them getting compensated in the manner of their choice.
Here, we have someone who is giving his art away, but with the restiction that if you use it to make money- you have to negotiate something with him.
Which is the manner by which he has chosen to be compensated. Artists sell their rights to labels who allow the RIAA to enforce their copyrights. That's their perrogative.
Don't fall for Roblimo's deception. He's deliberatly distorting the story. He says that Baystar thinks, "SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits." But then he quotes the Baystar spokesman as saying the focus should be on licensing. Duh. That's how companies make money from intellectual property. Of course this is only possible if you can make the threat of legal action.
So really Baystar never said they love IP lawsuits. They said they want to make money off of IP. I'm sure that they would much rather just collect license fees than have to sue, contrary to what the title and Roblimo's description imply.
No, he isn't being indescriminate in his targeting. He is being very descriminating, and he is only targeting percieved threats. His perception may be incorrect, or based on incomplete information, but that doesn't make it indescriminate.
You say that the characterization of the Armed Forces as indiscriminate killers is offensive to you. Well, the Armed Forces are pretty indiscriminate killers. That's not to say that the soldiers aren't doing a good job; for the most part, they are. (Yes, even the ones who in the heat of the moment make despicable quotes.) But in a war, civilans die. In an occupation, innocent people get slaughtered. When a kid runs at a soldier with his hand behind his back, the soldier doesn't know if he has a grenade or a toy and so he shoots. It's not an unreasonable action, but it's indiscriminate killing.
None of what you have described could be considered indiscriminate killing. I think the problem is that you don't know what indiscriminate means. It's a synonym for random not sad or tragic.
"Undue influence to large population"? Just what's wrong about people having power? That's what democracy is supposed to be about.
You are confused. The federal government as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America represents the states, not the people. The state government is supposed to represent the people. Of course you wouldn't this by looking at the federal government today. Congress has passed an incredible amout of laws that are blatantly unconstitutional under the umbrella of the commerce clause. But that was the intention, and that is why states elect the President, and once upon a time, Senators.
I read your whole statement. I think you are an anti-American conspiracy crazed hippie. Not only that, but you've completely lost any touch with reality that you may have had. I think it's obvious why Newsforge didn't post a link to your article. They were afraid of damaging your credibility:
The CentCom media blitz about the four contractors killed in Fallouja is just the cover story to prepare the American public to accept the mass murder they have decided is necessary. They say they just want the terrorists who killed and mutilated the bodies of the four armed civilian contractors, i.e. mercenary soldiers. This is a damn lie.
I once had high hopes for Linux. I felt sure it could make a real contribution to the success of humanity, now more and more I have my doubts. I have a real and growing fear that if the Mr. Smith's of Linux have their way, in the future they will look back and say "Wasn't it nice that so many smart people worked to hard for free to forge their own chains."
I feel that Lula no longer reflects the vision I have had for it and has in fact belittled itself as an organization for change and progress. I cannot attend Tuesday night's meeting, in fact I would be ashamed to in view of what our country is doing in Iraq. Therefore I am resigning as the president of Linux Users Los Angeles effective 7:00PM April 20, 2004.
On Rights and the Mailing List
Rights. You have rights. But you have responsibilities too. And you have no right to sit on your ass while your country commits atrocities.
Today we remember the Holocaust. The real shame of the Germans was that they allowed a bad leader to hijack the very considerable resources of their country to do some really horrible things while they when on with user group meetings and such as usual.
So sorry that Linux isn't the, "Tool with vast potential for the liberation of humanity." I know it's a dissapointment, but please find a good shrink and get yourself on medication. Maybe someday you'll figure out that we live in the real world where bad things happen, people die, and the Matrix was just a movie.
No. The point is whether you either are or should be aware of the other person's settings. If logging is on by default then it is only safe for you to assume that the other party has logging turned on. It doesn't matter how you configure your side. OTOH, if you and the other party were using different programs with different defaults, it could be interesting.
In the AOL chat session, there was no such default recording, and therefore no consent by Mr. MacMillan. Therefore, the recording was illegal. The test seems to be whether the recording capability is part of the instant messaging software itself (in which case it may be legal to record) or whether it is an add-on, and therefore an unlawful recording. Courts in other all-party consent states like Maryland have reached similar conclusions with respect to recording telephone conversations.
The demand curve is tied to the price. If the price goes down the demand goes up. If the price goes down, but unit profit remains the same (due to decreased costs) then total profit goes up due to the increased demand.
It really isn't too bad shooting slugs. But yes, there is a fold down front grip. Best of all, it's an AOW not a handgun so around here if you have your NFA tax stamp you can carry it without a permit.
By all means, engrave your address on it. That way when you get mugged, the vicious criminal knows where to go for more high priced consumer electronics. Why not just write down the serial number?
For home defense a shotgun is the prefered weapon. And a handgun; to get to the shotgun in case it isn't nearby when you need it. For out and about, a Shorty.
The answer is not that people like Canadians. The answer is that no one would give a shit if the terrorists attacked Canada. The Terrorists attacked NYC, because it's the hub of the global economy and to them represents the lavishness and abundance enjoyed by all of western civilization. They even hate the Saudis for allowing their sacred lands to be defiled by westerners. They pick their targets based on impact not animosity.
He's caught in the same trap SCO is. If he claims GPL is valid, he can't stop SCO from redistributing NMAP unless they violate the GPL. If he claims the GPL is invalid, no one can redistribute NMAP. All he could do is release all his future code under a NON-SCO PL, but he can't do that if he used any GPL'd code in NMAP.
If one legally declares a contract to *not* be valid, one cannot follow it's terms [logical contradition].
Have you ever paid a speeding ticket you didn't think you deserved? Did that pressent a logical contradiction? Companies sign contracts all the time and then go to court over the terms. Until the contract is ruled invalid by the court, it's still valid.
You are using the wrong definition of "accept". The paragraph from the GPL is using accept as in to "accept an offer," not as in "accept an idea."
There is nothing in the GPL that requires you to apprechiate it's ethos in order to use the software. However, if it went to court, SCO would not be allowed to simultaneously argue that the GPL is both valid and invalid. Outside of court they can do whatever they like. If you ask them, they will probably contend that regardless of their own claims the GPL is valid until a judge says it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
What does any of that have to do with your privacy. Do you think that the dark glasses makes it difficult for them to recognize you? Probably not if you ALWAYS wear dark glasses. Besides you've already been pegged as "that guy who's afraid of new money." Parking in the back of the lot may keep you away from the cameras, but it won't stop anyone from writing down your license plate number. What exactly are you afraid of?
It really, really, really, really, doesn't matter one whit whether or not the e-voting system is open or not. The "secrets" (i.e., what software is actually loaded on the machines) will always need to be held by some trusted group. The degree to which this group is tursted determinies how much influence they can have. In the paper ballot world, we mitigate risks by partition access that individuals have to ballots into small districts. In the e-voting world there will always be some group that has way to much access for their trust level. That's why e-voting will always be less secure than paper voting.
It's wrong because it's illegal. The rest of your post is gibberish mostly because you seem to be confusing hardware with software and DVD players with computer DVD drives. BTW, there is a manufacturer of MPEG cards that includes a licensed DVD player for Linux. Finding it is left as an exersise for the reader.
You aren't saying that users of Linux would rather use a free tool illegally than pay for one which does the same thing legally are you? I'm shocked. Of course it doesn't make Valenti wrong.
Maybe it's just because I'm not a zealot, but I don't see how that interview makes Valenti look like an idiot. The interviewer doesn't even ask him about fair-use, or any other non-technical questions, he just wants to know why he can't watch DVD's under Linux. Valenti replies that he doesn't know why no one makes a licensed DVD player for Linux, but there must be a good reason. The simple fact is that he's right. Why don't all the bitchers and whiners go out and write a licensed DVD player for Linux and SELL it it? There's such a big market for it, and it should be trivial to write, right?
1. Write licensed Linux DVD player
2. Sell licensed Linux DVD player
3. Profit!!!!
But no one that I know is against artists getting compensated.
But against them getting compensated in the manner of their choice.
Here, we have someone who is giving his art away, but with the restiction that if you use it to make money- you have to negotiate something with him.
Which is the manner by which he has chosen to be compensated. Artists sell their rights to labels who allow the RIAA to enforce their copyrights. That's their perrogative.
Don't fall for Roblimo's deception. He's deliberatly distorting the story. He says that Baystar thinks, "SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits." But then he quotes the Baystar spokesman as saying the focus should be on licensing. Duh. That's how companies make money from intellectual property. Of course this is only possible if you can make the threat of legal action.
So really Baystar never said they love IP lawsuits. They said they want to make money off of IP. I'm sure that they would much rather just collect license fees than have to sue, contrary to what the title and Roblimo's description imply.
No, he isn't being indescriminate in his targeting. He is being very descriminating, and he is only targeting percieved threats. His perception may be incorrect, or based on incomplete information, but that doesn't make it indescriminate.
You say that the characterization of the Armed Forces as indiscriminate killers is offensive to you. Well, the Armed Forces are pretty indiscriminate killers. That's not to say that the soldiers aren't doing a good job; for the most part, they are. (Yes, even the ones who in the heat of the moment make despicable quotes.) But in a war, civilans die. In an occupation, innocent people get slaughtered. When a kid runs at a soldier with his hand behind his back, the soldier doesn't know if he has a grenade or a toy and so he shoots. It's not an unreasonable action, but it's indiscriminate killing.
None of what you have described could be considered indiscriminate killing. I think the problem is that you don't know what indiscriminate means. It's a synonym for random not sad or tragic.
"Undue influence to large population"? Just what's wrong about people having power? That's what democracy is supposed to be about.
You are confused. The federal government as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America represents the states, not the people. The state government is supposed to represent the people. Of course you wouldn't this by looking at the federal government today. Congress has passed an incredible amout of laws that are blatantly unconstitutional under the umbrella of the commerce clause. But that was the intention, and that is why states elect the President, and once upon a time, Senators.
So sorry that Linux isn't the, "Tool with vast potential for the liberation of humanity." I know it's a dissapointment, but please find a good shrink and get yourself on medication. Maybe someday you'll figure out that we live in the real world where bad things happen, people die, and the Matrix was just a movie.
Laserdisc is analog.
No. The point is whether you either are or should be aware of the other person's settings. If logging is on by default then it is only safe for you to assume that the other party has logging turned on. It doesn't matter how you configure your side. OTOH, if you and the other party were using different programs with different defaults, it could be interesting.
The demand curve is tied to the price. If the price goes down the demand goes up. If the price goes down, but unit profit remains the same (due to decreased costs) then total profit goes up due to the increased demand.
It really isn't too bad shooting slugs. But yes, there is a fold down front grip. Best of all, it's an AOW not a handgun so around here if you have your NFA tax stamp you can carry it without a permit.
What's the best defensive weapon to use when you can't carry a gun?
Move out of California. Until you can do that get some pepper spray.
By all means, engrave your address on it. That way when you get mugged, the vicious criminal knows where to go for more high priced consumer electronics. Why not just write down the serial number?
For home defense a shotgun is the prefered weapon. And a handgun; to get to the shotgun in case it isn't nearby when you need it. For out and about, a Shorty.
Why did someone mod up this unintelligible karma whore?
The answer is not that people like Canadians. The answer is that no one would give a shit if the terrorists attacked Canada. The Terrorists attacked NYC, because it's the hub of the global economy and to them represents the lavishness and abundance enjoyed by all of western civilization. They even hate the Saudis for allowing their sacred lands to be defiled by westerners. They pick their targets based on impact not animosity.
No it doesn't. It says that if you don't accept the terms of the GPL then you have no license. Big difference.
He's caught in the same trap SCO is. If he claims GPL is valid, he can't stop SCO from redistributing NMAP unless they violate the GPL. If he claims the GPL is invalid, no one can redistribute NMAP. All he could do is release all his future code under a NON-SCO PL, but he can't do that if he used any GPL'd code in NMAP.
If one legally declares a contract to *not* be valid, one cannot follow it's terms [logical contradition].
Have you ever paid a speeding ticket you didn't think you deserved? Did that pressent a logical contradiction? Companies sign contracts all the time and then go to court over the terms. Until the contract is ruled invalid by the court, it's still valid.
You are using the wrong definition of "accept". The paragraph from the GPL is using accept as in to "accept an offer," not as in "accept an idea."
There is nothing in the GPL that requires you to apprechiate it's ethos in order to use the software. However, if it went to court, SCO would not be allowed to simultaneously argue that the GPL is both valid and invalid. Outside of court they can do whatever they like. If you ask them, they will probably contend that regardless of their own claims the GPL is valid until a judge says it isn't.