I sort of like the "Globals" on Earth: Final Conflict. Especially the magic stretching screen. Now if only it wasn't alien vampires they were fighting...
The Emancipation Proclomation was meaningless at the time it was made, but I wouldn't say it was a constitutional abuse. (A law can be meaningless, absurd, insulting, and constitutional.) I was mainly referring to suspending the writ of habeas corpus. This is not as well known as the Emancipation Proclomation, but among those who have heard of it, the best I've heard is that since Lincoln was such a good guy, maybe it wasn't so bad.
How is this any different than any other president in the US history. Lincoln, Washington, and FDR all did the same thing
Most presidents did not do these things. Washington was for all intents and purposes a king, and it was only his choice that prevented him from from exercising all of the power he could have had. Lincoln was second only to FDR in terms of presidents abusing the constitution. All of these men were good men, and we are lucky they happened to be in power when the situations arose that gave them the excuse to do their extreme power grabs for the executive branch. Their constitutional breaches are now viewed as the lowest points in their presidency.
As bad as September 11 was, it is not nearly the crisis that the formation of the country, the Civil War, or World War II was. And I don't trust Bush to be half the man any of the above three was. I trust Ashcroft even less.
The people that this is aimed at are NOT american citizens, they are either here on a visa, or here illegally.
How is this even relevant? The Constitution makes no distinction between a foreign defendant or a domestic one in a trial. It describes the powers and restrictions of the cort system, regardless of the defendant.
If you can site one instance where an american citizens rights are being violated by this act, then I will re-consider my stance.
How about the fact that the DOJ is Already Monitoring Cable Internet Traffic?
I don't think you know what a straw-man argument is. That was hyperbole. Obviously, the DMCA isn't the same as the Holocaust. However, your argument that the DMCA isn't bad because it doesn't hurt you personally is the same as the "When they came for the Jews..." statement. You may wish to make arguments that the DMCA isn't bad in general, but you said How exactly has the DMCA hurt you personally, anyways? It has yet to hurt me at all, as I never really had the right to make backups of my stuff in the first place (EULAs, copy protection, etc). The DMCA is practically a non-issue in my life, though I do find it distasteful. If it's a bad law, it's a bad law, even if it only hurts some guy in Intercourse, PA who lives with his parents.
Re:The short list of why he's unsympathetic...
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 2
A couple hundred years ago, the people without long hair wore wigs to make up for it.
I want some of what you're smoking. Hughes is beaming the signal, at their cost -- and you think it's unreasonable for them to want to get paid for it?
If I mail something to you unsolicited, I can't require that you pay for it, even if you actually want it and decide to keep it.
It probably means: "When the networks figure out how Commercial Advance(TM) works, and it gets popular, they'll figure out how to mess with it. Plus, the algorithm isn't exact, anyway."
But Acme can now use the same message board to say "Baba Abhui is a rotten liar. He never even bought our widget, he probably stole a broken one from God-knows-where. He'd beat up his own grandmother for a nickel! And he's a karma whore, too!" Since that's just Acme's opinion, there's nothing I can do.
Yes, what's the problem with that? People would give it just as much credence (or less) as your assertion that Acme widgets suck. That's speech. If either of you offered evidence, it would no longer be opinion. The validity of the evidence would decide whether it was libel or not.
What (s)he was probably saying was that the Church of Scientology shouldn't hold copyright, but members who are also authors should. Debatable as well, but more reasonable.
So if your pure opinion web page causes a loss of money to a corporation, your first ammendment rights are trumped? That may be the de facto situation in many cases, but i'd hardly say it's right. If an unsubstantiated claim is enough to cause a noticable sales loss, Ford should sue its PR firm before it sues your site. Now, if you substantiate your claim with lies, they can still sue you for libel.
That's the probable implementation. I was giving a foolproof method. An MD5 checksum only checks for accidental corruption. It's not difficult to deliberately make hostile code that will pass the MD5 check, and therefore be ignored by the virus scanner. A byte-by-byte check of the executable would be impossible to trick, unless I am missing something.
If I buy a package of Snickers, and on each candy bar is "not for individual sale", I can still sell one of them to you. However, the bar does not have to have the health info printed on it, since it is printed on the main package. The "not for resale" message mainly declaims various legal responsibilities if someone only gets the partial item.
However, many "upgrade" versions of software require the original to be there first. If you do this, and you get a new computer, you can't install it on the new computer.
Yeah right. You're going to build in back doors and then assume that you've created a 100% fool-proof method of detecting modified versions? Who do they think they are kidding?
Is this really that hard? If the FBI works with them, couldn't they check whether the file is identical to the one the FBI provides to them? Of course, this would involve having the "magic lantern" executable encoded in entirity in the antivirus software.
My parents got Verizon DSL over a year ago, when it was still Bell Atlantic DSL. For a couple months, it didn't work at all, and there would be a weekly visit from an incompetent 'repairman'. He would fiddle with the settings for hours, and give up. Finally, they sent their senior repairman, who promptly said that the internal DSL modem they had had an over 50% failure rate, and gave them an external DSL modem. This worked for a while, but it would periodically go out for a day at a time. Again, there were almost nightly calls to tech support, who would each blame the problem on a different reason, and make no progress. Finally, my parents were upgraded to "Presidential Level" support, and were sent a new external DSL modem. Things seem to work now, but we'll see...
On the other hand, I got the same DSL months before they did, and I've had hardly any problems.
Slashdot Mirror
When the executable is copied to the computer, scan the file for strings that match the antivirus software files. Perhaps not foolproof, but an idea.
General Relativity orders a positive charge, but comes under fire from ballistic missiles. It's time for a negative charge!
I think it's the most recent one that shows up.
I sort of like the "Globals" on Earth: Final Conflict. Especially the magic stretching screen.
Now if only it wasn't alien vampires they were fighting...
Compared to lawyers, the gnomes would probably be as effective, cheaper, and they wouldn't piss off the customers.
How do you improve homepage usability, if your homepage is useless? (like mine)
The Emancipation Proclomation was meaningless at the time it was made, but I wouldn't say it was a constitutional abuse. (A law can be meaningless, absurd, insulting, and constitutional.) I was mainly referring to suspending the writ of habeas corpus. This is not as well known as the Emancipation Proclomation, but among those who have heard of it, the best I've heard is that since Lincoln was such a good guy, maybe it wasn't so bad.
How is this any different than any other president in the US history. Lincoln, Washington, and FDR all did the same thing
Most presidents did not do these things. Washington was for all intents and purposes a king, and it was only his choice that prevented him from from exercising all of the power he could have had. Lincoln was second only to FDR in terms of presidents abusing the constitution. All of these men were good men, and we are lucky they happened to be in power when the situations arose that gave them the excuse to do their extreme power grabs for the executive branch. Their constitutional breaches are now viewed as the lowest points in their presidency.
As bad as September 11 was, it is not nearly the crisis that the formation of the country, the Civil War, or World War II was. And I don't trust Bush to be half the man any of the above three was. I trust Ashcroft even less.
The people that this is aimed at are NOT american citizens, they are either here on a visa, or here illegally.
How is this even relevant? The Constitution makes no distinction between a foreign defendant or a domestic one in a trial. It describes the powers and restrictions of the cort system, regardless of the defendant.
If you can site one instance where an american citizens rights are being violated by this act, then I will re-consider my stance.
How about the fact that the DOJ is Already Monitoring Cable Internet Traffic?
Would europeon countries extradite someone to the US of they could be tried in a military tribunal?
Even more: Would the US extradite someone to any country where they would be tried in a military tribunal?
europeon - funny.
I don't think you know what a straw-man argument is. That was hyperbole. Obviously, the DMCA isn't the same as the Holocaust. However, your argument that the DMCA isn't bad because it doesn't hurt you personally is the same as the "When they came for the Jews..." statement. You may wish to make arguments that the DMCA isn't bad in general, but you said How exactly has the DMCA hurt you personally, anyways? It has yet to hurt me at all, as I never really had the right to make backups of my stuff in the first place (EULAs, copy protection, etc). The DMCA is practically a non-issue in my life, though I do find it distasteful. If it's a bad law, it's a bad law, even if it only hurts some guy in Intercourse, PA who lives with his parents.
A couple hundred years ago, the people without long hair wore wigs to make up for it.
If I mail something to you unsolicited, I can't require that you pay for it, even if you actually want it and decide to keep it.
... what? A reason why it should be legal to steal satellite TV?
And this is
I'll try to use smaller words this time.
If - nobody - pays - for - satellite - TV - there - will - be - no - satellite - TV.
That is true of the business plan I described as well, but it doesn't make it a good business plan.
I want some of what you're smoking. Hughes is beaming the signal, at their cost -- and you think it's unreasonable for them to want to get paid for it?
If I mail something to you unsolicited, I can't require that you pay for it, even if you actually want it and decide to keep it.
just how many hours of TV do you need, anyways?
Well, Babylon 5 is 110 hours, the B5 movies add another 8, and Crusade is 13. Plus, there is a new B5 movie coming out. And then there's Buffy...
With many shows coming out on DVD, there's not the need to archive TV shows yourself anymore.
I'll believe it when I see it. (Yes, I've preordered the first B5 DVD.)
It probably means: "When the networks figure out how Commercial Advance(TM) works, and it gets popular, they'll figure out how to mess with it. Plus, the algorithm isn't exact, anyway."
But Acme can now use the same message board to say "Baba Abhui is a rotten liar. He never even bought our widget, he probably stole a broken one from God-knows-where. He'd beat up his own grandmother for a nickel! And he's a karma whore, too!" Since that's just Acme's opinion, there's nothing I can do.
Yes, what's the problem with that? People would give it just as much credence (or less) as your assertion that Acme widgets suck. That's speech. If either of you offered evidence, it would no longer be opinion. The validity of the evidence would decide whether it was libel or not.
Perhaps you mean Scientologists? Or have the Christian Scientists been suing message boards, too?
What (s)he was probably saying was that the Church of Scientology shouldn't hold copyright, but members who are also authors should. Debatable as well, but more reasonable.
So if your pure opinion web page causes a loss of money to a corporation, your first ammendment rights are trumped? That may be the de facto situation in many cases, but i'd hardly say it's right. If an unsubstantiated claim is enough to cause a noticable sales loss, Ford should sue its PR firm before it sues your site. Now, if you substantiate your claim with lies, they can still sue you for libel.
I'm lying.
That's the probable implementation. I was giving a foolproof method. An MD5 checksum only checks for accidental corruption. It's not difficult to deliberately make hostile code that will pass the MD5 check, and therefore be ignored by the virus scanner. A byte-by-byte check of the executable would be impossible to trick, unless I am missing something.
If I buy a package of Snickers, and on each candy bar is "not for individual sale", I can still sell one of them to you. However, the bar does not have to have the health info printed on it, since it is printed on the main package. The "not for resale" message mainly declaims various legal responsibilities if someone only gets the partial item.
However, many "upgrade" versions of software require the original to be there first. If you do this, and you get a new computer, you can't install it on the new computer.
Yeah right. You're going to build in back doors and then assume that you've created a 100% fool-proof method of detecting modified versions? Who do they think they are kidding?
Is this really that hard? If the FBI works with them, couldn't they check whether the file is identical to the one the FBI provides to them? Of course, this would involve having the "magic lantern" executable encoded in entirity in the antivirus software.
My parents got Verizon DSL over a year ago, when it was still Bell Atlantic DSL. For a couple months, it didn't work at all, and there would be a weekly visit from an incompetent 'repairman'. He would fiddle with the settings for hours, and give up. Finally, they sent their senior repairman, who promptly said that the internal DSL modem they had had an over 50% failure rate, and gave them an external DSL modem. This worked for a while, but it would periodically go out for a day at a time. Again, there were almost nightly calls to tech support, who would each blame the problem on a different reason, and make no progress. Finally, my parents were upgraded to "Presidential Level" support, and were sent a new external DSL modem. Things seem to work now, but we'll see...
On the other hand, I got the same DSL months before they did, and I've had hardly any problems.