Corporations are not persons and do not have inalienable rights, contrary to whatever their attorneys may have bought off courts into ruling. All corporate rights are Statutory, granted by the government. Anything given by the government can and should be taken away by the government when it is used to trample the inalienable rights of real persons acting in the public good.
I've been Notebook shopping for a while now, and XP Home is on Notebooks from Sony, HP, and Compaq. I've seen it on a 1Ghz Celeron Desktop and an Athlon desktop as well. It is already out in stores, and a little too late to block it.
I have to question after dozens of such bills being proposed and usually passing whether they are rash and poorly thought out or are a deliberate design. They are accellerating towards unsufferability regardless of their 'noble intent', whether or not such a thing exists.
If thinking what I want and saying what I think is a crime I am guilty to your thought-crimes and pray I'll have opportunity to expel the tyrants who exercise power to which they do not have right from US soil. This latest journey fascism will not stand.
Why? It was never intended to provide "Pure Democracy/Mob rule." Shouldn't people from less densely populated areas be represented, or only the large cities? If you want to give everyone better representation, instead of going the popular vote/mob rule route, try going back to the way it used to be done of giving one electoral vote per congressional district (House of Representative member) and the candidate to have the most votes in the State get the two electoral votes remaining (from the State's Senators).
I live in Pennsylvania. We have about 67 counties. Only about 6 of those are heavily Democrat. The rest are Republican with a moderate amount of Independents. Yet, Gore received the electoral votes that cover my and many other, much more conservative, (Lancaster and Amish people anyone?) counties because he won in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Getting rid of the Electoral College would make my vote even more meaningless than it is now. Only large cities would be at all represented in gov't. I agree with you, the Electoral vote should be counted towards the candidate that was voted for in 85% of a state's congressional districts.
Felten et al were obviously directly or implied that they'd be liable for publishing their research. I don't think a reasonable person would claim Princeton researchers are.IP-Pirates', yet the RIAA and SDMI still threatened them with legislation that isn't supposed to be applicable to them. Thus it would make sense to get a protective injunction against the enforcement of the DMCA on scholarly research and set a precedent that could readily dismiss any future cases.
So my phone gets tapped too if my brother-in-law is suspected of running a red light? Warrants are specific for a reason. To keep law enforcement from abusing its powers. If we make it possible in any way to they will. I have more to fear from the Gov't then they ever could from me.
I typed it up, printed it, signed it, stuffed it in an envelope, and dropped it off at the guy's office which is only 15 minutes away.
I suggested that if the FBI has to do emergency wiretaps then we could have Federal Judges on call 24/7 to approve or disapprove them. That way the FBI is still subject to scrutiny and they can get all the evil terrorists.
Then I explained why requiring a backdoor in encyption programs doesn't make any sense.
I wrote my Congressman last week about the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 that doesn't actually address terrorism. In it, I explained why one of the provisions just doesn't make any sense, and a reasonable alternative for the warrantless searches being proposed.
I've thought a lot about this, and there simply is no way to propose a reasonable alternative to the DMCA because there is no legitimate purpose for it in the first place. All the cases of companies actually violating copyright, like Napster, would be illegal under the existing Title 17 Section 106. All the ludicrous uses, like MPAA v. 2600 wouldn't have been illegal under existing legislation. Why? Because the DMCA isn't a legitimate reasoning for a law to start with.
The "dollar" has been dead for a long time. They used to say on the front that they could be exchanged for one ounce of silver, or a 'dollar.' Obviously they don't anymore.
The gold is for balancing foreign debts, you can't walk into a bank, hand them $500 and say you want gold.
If you were watching the news around 6PM Tuesday then you'd know that the people of Afganistan were subject to terrorism too. N. Ireland isn't exactly the safest place in the world either.
The point is, that Afganistan isn't at all free, and there is limited freedom in N. Ireland. And there is still terrorism. There isn't an instance I'm aware of where a gov't released a new power it was granted even on a temporary basis. That emergency income tax measure, Amendment XVI, really faded into the night after Reconstruction didn't it?
Any freedoms we give up will not make us safer, and will never be returned to us. If you believe otherwise then you are fooling yourself.
The gov't has made clear by the DMCA & SSCA among other blatant special interest attacks on Free Speech and the right to due process under the law that it simply cannot be trusted. In the US, people used to be innocent until proven guilty. If there is no legitimate enough belief of wrongdoing to convince a federal judge then the gov't has no right to violate my privacy.
If warrants may be needed on a moment's notice then a solution that wouldn't violate the 99.999% of the population would be to have some judges on call 24/7 to authorize or deny such warrants. Unless the FBI is just fishing for terrorists, they can get warrants to read terrorists email and leave mine and the rest of the country's email alone.
The simple fact of the matter is the Gov't doesn't have a right to read everyone's postage or email. What I write in that correspondence isn't relevant, I am innocent of crime until proven otherwise by a jury of my peers. If there is no reason to believe I'm breaking the law, then their is no reason to be spied on. If there is a reason to believe that my correspondence could prove I'm planning to commit a crime then law enforcement can get a warrant authorized for a wiretap from a judge. I neither need or desire a Big Brother to look after me.
Law enforcement has every tool available to them that they need now to fight terrorism. I won't forfeit my freedom so that your delusions of safety can be fulfilled. The Constitution is a static document which was intended to restrain Government, which the Founders believed to be essentially evil, from infringing on the rights of the people. The government reading my email wouldn't have prevented this tragedy and wouldn't make you more safe. The world isn't a safe and happy place, deal with it.
What like the US that doesn't trust its own citizens and insists on spying on them without even being able to convince a judge of a reason?
Maybe you need to go outside and schedule a welcoming party to the real world. Our interests are wealth and power. If the US is *SO* about democracy and freedom, why doesn't it recognize the basic freedoms of all people that it recognizes for US citizens in the Bill of Rights?
Like hell we don't celebrate when we bomb the Iraqis. People sat for hours in front of the television cheering on the 'smart-bombings.'
No one is saying the Taliban is ok, it is merely being pointed out that the US gov't is not some angelic democratic loveforce you imagine it to be.
A little side note for you: Most of the world is angry about the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Why though? Is it becuase you resent the destruction of fine architeture? No, it is probably becuase thousands of innocent people died. So, what should we do? Bomb the people that did it? If 8 people were involved and are now sheltered by the Afgan gov't why are we bombing the people? Gov't officials and Bin Laden will be safe away in bunkers while American bombs will fall and murder innocent Afgans. Which just shows that the US is great at terrorizing the innocent inhabitants of smaller nations. Afganistan isn't a democracy, the people have little or no say in gov't. So, murdering them only will drive more to become suicide bombers to avenge all those killed by our bombs.
I have a RIGHT to be able to communicate in private without the Government knowing what I'm saying. If the Government wasn't in fact, just going fishing for an excuse to null personal privacy rights then they would know whose messages to look for in the first place. I am not a terrorist and there is no reason to believe otherwise. What reason is there then for the Government to look over every bit of data and message I communicate?
P.S. Do you really believe that terrorists who could plan such an elaborate attack are going to intentionally update their software to one with a backdoor in it? No, I didn't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Secure against who, users?
Now I can get that pair of wings and tail I've always wanted.
I'll never get another "funny email" from my Mom again!
Corporations are not persons and do not have inalienable rights, contrary to whatever their attorneys may have bought off courts into ruling. All corporate rights are Statutory, granted by the government. Anything given by the government can and should be taken away by the government when it is used to trample the inalienable rights of real persons acting in the public good.
An open and exploitable box on a T1/T3 is like leaving firearms laying around public places. Irresponsible and dangerous.
I've been Notebook shopping for a while now, and XP Home is on Notebooks from Sony, HP, and Compaq. I've seen it on a 1Ghz Celeron Desktop and an Athlon desktop as well. It is already out in stores, and a little too late to block it.
I have to question after dozens of such bills being proposed and usually passing whether they are rash and poorly thought out or are a deliberate design. They are accellerating towards unsufferability regardless of their 'noble intent', whether or not such a thing exists.
You can vote for people think like you where you live. Run for office or vote for someone who does think like you.
If thinking what I want and saying what I think is a crime I am guilty to your thought-crimes and pray I'll have opportunity to expel the tyrants who exercise power to which they do not have right from US soil. This latest journey fascism will not stand.
Why? It was never intended to provide "Pure Democracy/Mob rule." Shouldn't people from less densely populated areas be represented, or only the large cities? If you want to give everyone better representation, instead of going the popular vote/mob rule route, try going back to the way it used to be done of giving one electoral vote per congressional district (House of Representative member) and the candidate to have the most votes in the State get the two electoral votes remaining (from the State's Senators).
I live in Pennsylvania. We have about 67 counties. Only about 6 of those are heavily Democrat. The rest are Republican with a moderate amount of Independents. Yet, Gore received the electoral votes that cover my and many other, much more conservative, (Lancaster and Amish people anyone?) counties because he won in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Getting rid of the Electoral College would make my vote even more meaningless than it is now. Only large cities would be at all represented in gov't. I agree with you, the Electoral vote should be counted towards the candidate that was voted for in 85% of a state's congressional districts.
Felten et al were obviously directly or implied that they'd be liable for publishing their research. I don't think a reasonable person would claim Princeton researchers are .IP-Pirates', yet the RIAA and SDMI still threatened them with legislation that isn't supposed to be applicable to them. Thus it would make sense to get a protective injunction against the enforcement of the DMCA on scholarly research and set a precedent that could readily dismiss any future cases.
damn, beat me to it!
Wouldn't you love a Beowulf Cluster of these things!!
Come on, it had to be said.
That won't align and add SSE/SSE2 instructions to the mix, smarty boy.
This just in, '"I want you, evil hackers," Says Uncle Sam Website' hacked.
So my phone gets tapped too if my brother-in-law is suspected of running a red light? Warrants are specific for a reason. To keep law enforcement from abusing its powers. If we make it possible in any way to they will. I have more to fear from the Gov't then they ever could from me.
How will that happen with a PGP encrypted email exactly? It wouldn't be much of a hack to encrypt your IM proggie messages either..
I typed it up, printed it, signed it, stuffed it in an envelope, and dropped it off at the guy's office which is only 15 minutes away.
I suggested that if the FBI has to do emergency wiretaps then we could have Federal Judges on call 24/7 to approve or disapprove them. That way the FBI is still subject to scrutiny and they can get all the evil terrorists.
Then I explained why requiring a backdoor in encyption programs doesn't make any sense.
I wrote my Congressman last week about the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 that doesn't actually address terrorism. In it, I explained why one of the provisions just doesn't make any sense, and a reasonable alternative for the warrantless searches being proposed.
I've thought a lot about this, and there simply is no way to propose a reasonable alternative to the DMCA because there is no legitimate purpose for it in the first place. All the cases of companies actually violating copyright, like Napster, would be illegal under the existing Title 17 Section 106. All the ludicrous uses, like MPAA v. 2600 wouldn't have been illegal under existing legislation. Why? Because the DMCA isn't a legitimate reasoning for a law to start with.
The "dollar" has been dead for a long time. They used to say on the front that they could be exchanged for one ounce of silver, or a 'dollar.' Obviously they don't anymore.
The gold is for balancing foreign debts, you can't walk into a bank, hand them $500 and say you want gold.
If you were watching the news around 6PM Tuesday then you'd know that the people of Afganistan were subject to terrorism too. N. Ireland isn't exactly the safest place in the world either.
The point is, that Afganistan isn't at all free, and there is limited freedom in N. Ireland. And there is still terrorism. There isn't an instance I'm aware of where a gov't released a new power it was granted even on a temporary basis. That emergency income tax measure, Amendment XVI, really faded into the night after Reconstruction didn't it?
Any freedoms we give up will not make us safer, and will never be returned to us. If you believe otherwise then you are fooling yourself.
The gov't has made clear by the DMCA & SSCA among other blatant special interest attacks on Free Speech and the right to due process under the law that it simply cannot be trusted. In the US, people used to be innocent until proven guilty. If there is no legitimate enough belief of wrongdoing to convince a federal judge then the gov't has no right to violate my privacy.
If warrants may be needed on a moment's notice then a solution that wouldn't violate the 99.999% of the population would be to have some judges on call 24/7 to authorize or deny such warrants. Unless the FBI is just fishing for terrorists, they can get warrants to read terrorists email and leave mine and the rest of the country's email alone.
The simple fact of the matter is the Gov't doesn't have a right to read everyone's postage or email. What I write in that correspondence isn't relevant, I am innocent of crime until proven otherwise by a jury of my peers. If there is no reason to believe I'm breaking the law, then their is no reason to be spied on. If there is a reason to believe that my correspondence could prove I'm planning to commit a crime then law enforcement can get a warrant authorized for a wiretap from a judge. I neither need or desire a Big Brother to look after me.
Law enforcement has every tool available to them that they need now to fight terrorism. I won't forfeit my freedom so that your delusions of safety can be fulfilled. The Constitution is a static document which was intended to restrain Government, which the Founders believed to be essentially evil, from infringing on the rights of the people. The government reading my email wouldn't have prevented this tragedy and wouldn't make you more safe. The world isn't a safe and happy place, deal with it.
Hey Mommy look at the troll! Where does he keep his bridge?
What like the US that doesn't trust its own citizens and insists on spying on them without even being able to convince a judge of a reason?
Maybe you need to go outside and schedule a welcoming party to the real world. Our interests are wealth and power. If the US is *SO* about democracy and freedom, why doesn't it recognize the basic freedoms of all people that it recognizes for US citizens in the Bill of Rights?
Like hell we don't celebrate when we bomb the Iraqis. People sat for hours in front of the television cheering on the 'smart-bombings.'
No one is saying the Taliban is ok, it is merely being pointed out that the US gov't is not some angelic democratic loveforce you imagine it to be.
A little side note for you: Most of the world is angry about the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Why though? Is it becuase you resent the destruction of fine architeture? No, it is probably becuase thousands of innocent people died. So, what should we do? Bomb the people that did it? If 8 people were involved and are now sheltered by the Afgan gov't why are we bombing the people? Gov't officials and Bin Laden will be safe away in bunkers while American bombs will fall and murder innocent Afgans. Which just shows that the US is great at terrorizing the innocent inhabitants of smaller nations. Afganistan isn't a democracy, the people have little or no say in gov't. So, murdering them only will drive more to become suicide bombers to avenge all those killed by our bombs.
I have a RIGHT to be able to communicate in private without the Government knowing what I'm saying. If the Government wasn't in fact, just going fishing for an excuse to null personal privacy rights then they would know whose messages to look for in the first place. I am not a terrorist and there is no reason to believe otherwise. What reason is there then for the Government to look over every bit of data and message I communicate?
P.S. Do you really believe that terrorists who could plan such an elaborate attack are going to intentionally update their software to one with a backdoor in it? No, I didn't think so.