Actually, I need to clarify my previous statement.:
What matters is whether any code copyrighted (GPL or not) and submitted by the copyright holder remains in the code after 10 years of non-external changes.
Actually, the solider who passed off the information was acting as a spy in a time of war:
Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.
Please list at least one person who has been "disappeared" in the United States over the last 10 years for supporting "anything counter-culture or pro-liberty".
Everyone who has been screaming about how the ballot and soap boxes have let the United States down, here is the results of your rhetoric. Someone has resorted to the ammo box. Aren't you proud?
Look at the opportunity costs: Whatever one could have made at a full time job, and possibly a second job. Unable to visit family and friend. Spending a couple of years worth of special events alone. If one has a child or children, one will miss 30 months of life. If the child is a baby, the child may not even know one after release. Then, there is the social and psychological effects of being in prison
Really, think it through. Do you think Thomas would trade her million dollar judgement for 30 months in prison?
Really? Copyright is a legally granted right to control the copying of a work for a limited time. You don't think it should be a crime? What other legally granted rights do you think it should not be a crime to violate? How about keeping someone from voting? How about refusing to serve someone because of their race, creed, etc? All of them except the ones you don't like?
Please, O arbiter of what should be considered a crime, please enlighten us as to what legally granted rights should be protected under threat of criminal prosecution and which shouldn't.
While you are at it, why not answer the same question for white collar crimes, such as embezzlement, and insider trading? And, you can answer for not paying a hooker, or having sex with a minor too. Oh, and let us not forget desertion and espionage.
Fair use is for copyrighted items and I doubt it would apply here. I really haven't read the applicable law as it is a California law. And, is this really parody?
I don't think so, but that would be a question for the courts.
Yeah, I feel the same about sociopathic internet trolls.
Let's see, you are following me and commenting on my various comments. That makes you a comment stalker. Your snide comments make you a troll. Sounds like you are a sociopathic internet troll. I guess you should go shoot yourself.
No, the negative behaviors are associated with addiction. Tell me, when one can not afford a can of coke because one can not keep a job because one is using too much to work, what then?
Then, I guess he is not so proud of using drugs, now is he? If he is not willing to stand behind his words, then his words are meaningless. If his drug use is private, then he should keep it to himself. If he wants to publicly comment on his drug use and how good it was for him, then he should do it publicly under his own name, not cower behind a false front. Until he is willing to state publicly who he is and what drugs he has done, he can STFU.
I don't need to watch the video. The simple fact is that society should not have to support addicts. Addicts should be allowed to die of their addictions.
The only problem with the drug war is that we do not treat it like a war. We do not kill the enemy, nor do we try to.
As far as I am concerned, if we really wanted to end drug abuse, we would summarily execute drug traffickers, drug dealers, and habitual drug offenders.
Drug addicts generally don't want treatment. And, sentencing people to drug treatment doesn't work. One can lead a horse to water but one can not make it drink.
As for "it" having worked with tobacco, etc., no it has not. While the numbers of smokers is going down, smoking is by no means going away. If you think alcohol abuse isn't a problem, I suggest you look at drunk driving arrests. While you are at it, you might want to look up the number of AA meetings and other alcohol abuse treatment centers. And, the number alcohol related deaths. You mention gambling as an addiction, which I don't agree with, but assuming it is, look at the explosive growth of gaming in the U.S. and on-line. The same can be said of porn.
Ignoring the pervasive negative effects of something that is legal does not make those negative effects cease to exist. It just means you are ignoring them because they are inconvenient to your cause.
I will say this, if people exhibited more personal responsibility, my opinion might be different. But, they don't. I know someone going to prison for drugs. She deserves to be going to prison. She occasionally admits this. The rest of the time, she talks about how it was not her fault. She violated her probation and said she wanted to go back on probation. I asked if she would follow the rules of probation and what those rules were. She said she would follow them, then said:
Be home when they come to check your curfew and have a clean piss test.
I had to remind her that the rules were actually "Be home during curfew hours" and "Don't use illegal drugs, don't take drugs for which you don't have a prescription, and take the drugs you are prescribed as prescribed."
Like all other drug abusers I have met, she feels she was not doing anything wrong, the law is wrong, and it is not her fault she got in trouble. She does not take responsibility for herself, her actions, or the fact that it was her behavior that landed her in prison for 30 months at the age of 29 for transporting heroin. Which, by the way, she feels should not be illegal in the U.S. because it is a prescription drug in other countries.
So, until you know an addict and have experienced life with them, please shut the fuck up about how drugs should be legalized.
Per the Constitution of the United States (CUS) Article 6, the Constitution itself, the treaties made by the federal government, and the laws of the federal government are the supreme law of the land. Congress' powers and its ability to make law is defined in the Constitution in Article 2. The Tenth Amendment gives any powers not specifically granted the federal government to the states and/or the people. It can be argued quite convincingly that the founders intended the federal law to be small, lax, and all-encompassing with the states making more and stricter laws. But, Congress has the power to make any laws that are needed to execute the powers defined in Article 2. And, Congress has made many, occasionally contradictory, laws.
This has led to some interesting situations.
California claims it can legalize marijuana because no interstate trade (CUS Art 2 Sec 8) is occurring, but that flies in the face of the federal prohibition of marijuana (CUS Art 6). Interestingly, it can be argued that because federal law forbids the sale of health insurance across state lines, the federal government does not have the authority to force people to buy insurance (Art 2 Sec 8 again) because no interstate trade is occurring.
Part of the problem is that the Supreme Court of the United States has made rulings that are contradictory and in some ways contradict the written words of the Constitution.
Whether or not this is a problem and how it is a problem depends on what one believes. Democrats are supposed to be for a strong federal government, with lots of federal control, lots of federal programs, and lots of federal laws. Republicans are supposed to be for a small, weaker federal government with most laws, tax collection, and spending at the state level. Sadly, neither party is really living up to the stated ideals.
And when someone you love dies after jumping out of a window because they are having a bad trip and think they can fly from the monsters coming out of the walls, you will still feel the same way, right?
I will agree we should stop the war on drugs if you agree we should make it illegal for the government and NGOs to provide support to drug addicts. No welfare, no medicare, no medicaid, no support at all, period. Will you agree with that?
In nature, the addict fends for himself and if he fails to do so, he dies.. In society, addicts and their co-dependents expect society to to fend for the addicts so the addicts won't die. Until society doesn't have to support and fend for addicts and allows nature to take its course, I see no reason to legalize recreational drug use.
Oh, and I have watched how the legal system treats drug abuse. It is way too lenient to start with and stays lenient until it because very harsh. The penalties are applied inconsistently and often haphazardly. My erstwhile girlfriend is going to prison for 30 months for driving her ex-boyfriend to do a deal. He did the deal and is now out on probation after doing an in-jail drug treatment program. So, the driver gets prison, the dealer gets probation. That is the problem with the laws, not that the laws exist.
When an animal becomes so addicted that it cannot fend for itself, it dies. When people get so addicted they can't fend for themselves, they expect the rest of the population to care and support them so they can go on using.
Oh, I do see the difference. But, you seem to miss the point. Everyone deserves the right to some control of their own image. Public figures, such as Jobs, lose some control over their image. But, no one should be allowed to make money solely off of another person image without that person's permission.
You could care less if someone made a sex doll with your likeness, right? Well, what if it were your mother's, or your wife's? What if it were your daughter's image?
What if you were pro-choice and your images was used in a context that implied you were ant-choice? What is your image was used to promote a product you had never heard of and would never have used (This, btw, is the source of the CA law.)
Slashdot Mirror
Presumption does not matter. What matters is whether or not any GPL code REMAINS in WinMTR after 10 years of non-external changes.
Please list at least one person who has been "disappeared" in the United States over the last 10 years for supporting "anything counter-culture or pro-liberty".
No one? Yeah, thought so.
As opposed to the very real risk of armed robbery every business and person faces? This is a red herring.
Everyone who has been screaming about how the ballot and soap boxes have let the United States down, here is the results of your rhetoric. Someone has resorted to the ammo box. Aren't you proud?
It is because you are a paranoid, sociopathic troll.
As if you would know what goes on at the U.S./Mexico border, troll.
Look at the opportunity costs:
Whatever one could have made at a full time job, and possibly a second job.
Unable to visit family and friend.
Spending a couple of years worth of special events alone.
If one has a child or children, one will miss 30 months of life. If the child is a baby, the child may not even know one after release.
Then, there is the social and psychological effects of being in prison
Really, think it through. Do you think Thomas would trade her million dollar judgement for 30 months in prison?
Really? Copyright is a legally granted right to control the copying of a work for a limited time. You don't think it should be a crime? What other legally granted rights do you think it should not be a crime to violate? How about keeping someone from voting? How about refusing to serve someone because of their race, creed, etc? All of them except the ones you don't like?
Please, O arbiter of what should be considered a crime, please enlighten us as to what legally granted rights should be protected under threat of criminal prosecution and which shouldn't.
While you are at it, why not answer the same question for white collar crimes, such as embezzlement, and insider trading? And, you can answer for not paying a hooker, or having sex with a minor too. Oh, and let us not forget desertion and espionage.
Exactly how much is not being locked up in prison for 30 months worth to you and being a convicted felon worth to you?
Fair use is for copyrighted items and I doubt it would apply here. I really haven't read the applicable law as it is a California law. And, is this really parody?
I don't think so, but that would be a question for the courts.
Let's see, you are following me and commenting on my various comments. That makes you a comment stalker. Your snide comments make you a troll. Sounds like you are a sociopathic internet troll. I guess you should go shoot yourself.
No, the negative behaviors are associated with addiction. Tell me, when one can not afford a can of coke because one can not keep a job because one is using too much to work, what then?
You, sir, are a bad animal who should be shot.
Then, I guess he is not so proud of using drugs, now is he? If he is not willing to stand behind his words, then his words are meaningless. If his drug use is private, then he should keep it to himself. If he wants to publicly comment on his drug use and how good it was for him, then he should do it publicly under his own name, not cower behind a false front. Until he is willing to state publicly who he is and what drugs he has done, he can STFU.
The only problem with the drug war is that we do not treat it like a war. We do not kill the enemy, nor do we try to.
As far as I am concerned, if we really wanted to end drug abuse, we would summarily execute drug traffickers, drug dealers, and habitual drug offenders.
Drug addicts generally don't want treatment. And, sentencing people to drug treatment doesn't work. One can lead a horse to water but one can not make it drink.
As for "it" having worked with tobacco, etc., no it has not. While the numbers of smokers is going down, smoking is by no means going away. If you think alcohol abuse isn't a problem, I suggest you look at drunk driving arrests. While you are at it, you might want to look up the number of AA meetings and other alcohol abuse treatment centers. And, the number alcohol related deaths. You mention gambling as an addiction, which I don't agree with, but assuming it is, look at the explosive growth of gaming in the U.S. and on-line. The same can be said of porn.
Ignoring the pervasive negative effects of something that is legal does not make those negative effects cease to exist. It just means you are ignoring them because they are inconvenient to your cause.
I will say this, if people exhibited more personal responsibility, my opinion might be different. But, they don't. I know someone going to prison for drugs. She deserves to be going to prison. She occasionally admits this. The rest of the time, she talks about how it was not her fault. She violated her probation and said she wanted to go back on probation. I asked if she would follow the rules of probation and what those rules were. She said she would follow them, then said:
I had to remind her that the rules were actually "Be home during curfew hours" and "Don't use illegal drugs, don't take drugs for which you don't have a prescription, and take the drugs you are prescribed as prescribed."
Like all other drug abusers I have met, she feels she was not doing anything wrong, the law is wrong, and it is not her fault she got in trouble. She does not take responsibility for herself, her actions, or the fact that it was her behavior that landed her in prison for 30 months at the age of 29 for transporting heroin. Which, by the way, she feels should not be illegal in the U.S. because it is a prescription drug in other countries.
So, until you know an addict and have experienced life with them, please shut the fuck up about how drugs should be legalized.
Per the Constitution of the United States (CUS) Article 6, the Constitution itself, the treaties made by the federal government, and the laws of the federal government are the supreme law of the land. Congress' powers and its ability to make law is defined in the Constitution in Article 2. The Tenth Amendment gives any powers not specifically granted the federal government to the states and/or the people. It can be argued quite convincingly that the founders intended the federal law to be small, lax, and all-encompassing with the states making more and stricter laws. But, Congress has the power to make any laws that are needed to execute the powers defined in Article 2. And, Congress has made many, occasionally contradictory, laws.
This has led to some interesting situations.
California claims it can legalize marijuana because no interstate trade (CUS Art 2 Sec 8) is occurring, but that flies in the face of the federal prohibition of marijuana (CUS Art 6). Interestingly, it can be argued that because federal law forbids the sale of health insurance across state lines, the federal government does not have the authority to force people to buy insurance (Art 2 Sec 8 again) because no interstate trade is occurring.
Part of the problem is that the Supreme Court of the United States has made rulings that are contradictory and in some ways contradict the written words of the Constitution.
Whether or not this is a problem and how it is a problem depends on what one believes. Democrats are supposed to be for a strong federal government, with lots of federal control, lots of federal programs, and lots of federal laws. Republicans are supposed to be for a small, weaker federal government with most laws, tax collection, and spending at the state level. Sadly, neither party is really living up to the stated ideals.
The star Sol is responsible for the rain. You may sue at your convenience.
You feel so positive about it that you post as an AC? Sorry, but I don't believe you at all.
And when someone you love dies after jumping out of a window because they are having a bad trip and think they can fly from the monsters coming out of the walls, you will still feel the same way, right?
I will agree we should stop the war on drugs if you agree we should make it illegal for the government and NGOs to provide support to drug addicts. No welfare, no medicare, no medicaid, no support at all, period. Will you agree with that?
In nature, the addict fends for himself and if he fails to do so, he dies.. In society, addicts and their co-dependents expect society to to fend for the addicts so the addicts won't die. Until society doesn't have to support and fend for addicts and allows nature to take its course, I see no reason to legalize recreational drug use.
Oh, and I have watched how the legal system treats drug abuse. It is way too lenient to start with and stays lenient until it because very harsh. The penalties are applied inconsistently and often haphazardly. My erstwhile girlfriend is going to prison for 30 months for driving her ex-boyfriend to do a deal. He did the deal and is now out on probation after doing an in-jail drug treatment program. So, the driver gets prison, the dealer gets probation. That is the problem with the laws, not that the laws exist.
When an animal becomes so addicted that it cannot fend for itself, it dies. When people get so addicted they can't fend for themselves, they expect the rest of the population to care and support them so they can go on using.
Oh, and are you part of the mod bombing crew? I wouldn't put it past you.
What if you didn't want anyone selling them at all?
Oh, I do see the difference. But, you seem to miss the point. Everyone deserves the right to some control of their own image. Public figures, such as Jobs, lose some control over their image. But, no one should be allowed to make money solely off of another person image without that person's permission.
You could care less if someone made a sex doll with your likeness, right? Well, what if it were your mother's, or your wife's? What if it were your daughter's image?
What if you were pro-choice and your images was used in a context that implied you were ant-choice? What is your image was used to promote a product you had never heard of and would never have used (This, btw, is the source of the CA law.)
Do you see the problem now?