He makes an interesting case, but ignores the fact that the chancellor manipulates a fake war to consolidate his power, causing the death of numerous individuals, many of them Jedi.
The Jedi may be arrogant, but they seem to be a very loyal "royal guard" and their idealism is not misplaced.
I work in a development office for a major university. One of our significant donors complained that a link to our site mis-stated the sum he contributed and asked that it be corrected.
It turns out that the link was to an article published prior to the final installment of his gift. The article was misleading, but we informed him that we could not change history (by eliminating the fact that the misleading article was published as such), even to correct a mistake. We compromised by removing the links to the article, thereby removing access to it. I don't think any respectable person in the position to disseminate information would condone making changes that broad without making it very clear to the reader that a previous version existed.
Alan, I use a Mac at work for general administrative work and some desktop publishing. At home, I use Windows, mostly for gaming and surfing the net. I like the idea of Linux, but am not yet convinced enough to go through any trouble to do it and then have to worry about compatability issues. What argument would you use to persuade me (and others standing on the fence)?
Will these two phenomenon affect sea water salinity? I read recently that decreased salinity is a serious threat to the sub ocean currents that keep our global climate stable. Does anyone have a link that discusses the point?
It's amazing to me how many posters think that legitimate nations will impose laws that are to strict to adhere to. I doubt Belgium will ban a web site for saying that they smell, that the Uzbeks will get all particular over a web site with English in it, or that Canadia will soon ban the use of the word "the."
I'm not asking for compliance with rogue states. Hell, I didn't even say all "legitimate" governments. I said "democratic." This would not include, for instance, Saudia Arabia, China, or Cuba.
Also (and I'm exercising my freedom to name call here), not one post, with the exception of those by hogsback, has made an argument that would hold up in a logic or rhetoric class.
A) I'm not afraid, I just think that we in the USA are prone to push ourselves on the rest of the world and force them to adjust to us. It's called Imperialism.
B) I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and a journalist. I believe in unmitigated free speech as protected by OUR constitution. Some countries don't agree with the concept of unmitigated free speech, even though they are democratic nations (UK, France, Germany). I think we should respect that. It's not up to me to revolutionize another country's ideas of right and wrong when they are run by freely elected leaders. To impose our ideals and standards is the opposite of freedom, and we're well hated for it throughout the rest of the world.
I'm all for increases in security, but scared to death of being in a national database that could track how often I buy beer, go to the bank, or rent a car.
What's the solution? Forbid the government from storing information like that? Limit how long they can store information on law abiding citizens? I have no idea.
One way that a country tries to keep out unwanted content is to sue or prosecute. When illegal contraband makes it into a country, they still have the right to seize and prosecute.
I'm not saying that they would win every case, or even that they would prosecute in every case. Most often, the first course of action would be a warning, or request, by the country. I'm not saying that I have the answers, just that we shouldn't just have free reign because it's too hard to determine a solution.
There are other solutions to the problem. I'm just saying that just becuase it's hard, or the technology is different, does not excuse someone from being liable.
Discussions like this open a forum for figuring out resonable solutions (or in your case, name calling).
For instance: One solution we use in the US to try to curtail underage viewing of porn is to send the requester to a page stating what content they might expect and say that they must be 18. If someone ignores this and continues to the site, then they are the one breaking the law.
Also, you'll notice in the original post, that I mention the server operator (a business owner, presumably trying to earn a profit) not individuals. I also specify democratic nations, but that is a different discussion altogether.
See. This is the problem. Everyone thinks that because the server is not located in a particular place that the operator of the server has some special immunity to all other laws other than those where the server is located. And just because the technology is different. Not true. And the courts are agreeing with me.
You can't hide behind the "this is a new system of delivering information" arguments because it's still a system of delivering information (and goods and services). The technology may be different, but it's up to those developing and utilizing the technology to figure out a way to follow the law.
This may be an unpopular view, but here goes. I think that a democratic country has a right to defend its borders. For instance, if the people of this country have agreed, through democratic process, that they don't want to be exposed to child porn, then they have a right in their country to defend against it.
The burden is on the business (or server) to obey the laws of the land where they operate. Hosting a web site should not exclude a person or company from liability. If I print a newsletter in the US and then drop it by plane in France, I should adhere to French law. If I host a web site that French citizens have access to, likewise.
Also, ignorance is no excuse. Should I happen to travel to another country, the burden is on me to learn the traffic laws before I rent a car and drive around.
I knew it, down deep in my bones, I knew that was exactly what I was dealing with everytime I've had to call Tech Support. At least twice, I've been on the phone with my provider and been the one to figure the problem out.
There will certainly be file-sharing sites, but they will become a fringe, alternative media, existing in small and sparsely-trafficked corners of the Web.
Yeah, I'm sure he wouldn't have said a word if it was in his party's best interest, instead of the two opposing parties. It just seems like a misuse of power. I know, I know, why am I surprised!?
"Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh has threatened legal action against Kansans who engage in vote-swapping. Here's a real gem from the AP article: 'Thornburgh said Wednesday he wasn't sure whether the practice was illegal, and he wasn't aware of any vote swapping in Kansas. However, he also said he would go to court if anyone tried it in the state.'
Does this scare anyone else?
Every generation of people at the threshold of major transformation has argued the same (some with justification). Technological advance is always good, but is subject to human nature. Thus, sometimes it used good and well, while othertimes it is not. Paranoia doesn't stop technologies from being abused, but education usually does.
If the FBI suspect that you are armed, then they just go in with weapons drawn, making for a much more dangerous situation. If you draw your weapon to "defend" what they have a warrent to take, then you get killed.
Ethically, there is no problem. Journalism's primary goal is the distribution of information, not profit seeking. Consequently, Andy should not be barred as a result of his position and/. should not censor him as a result thereof. If Andy has information that he knows interests a certain forum, he is ethically required to distribute that information.
Slashdot Mirror
The Jedi may be arrogant, but they seem to be a very loyal "royal guard" and their idealism is not misplaced.
It's like the (some) free speech issues. Our laws don't change just because we have a new way to say or promote something.
I work in a development office for a major university. One of our significant donors complained that a link to our site mis-stated the sum he contributed and asked that it be corrected.
It turns out that the link was to an article published prior to the final installment of his gift. The article was misleading, but we informed him that we could not change history (by eliminating the fact that the misleading article was published as such), even to correct a mistake. We compromised by removing the links to the article, thereby removing access to it. I don't think any respectable person in the position to disseminate information would condone making changes that broad without making it very clear to the reader that a previous version existed.
Alan, I use a Mac at work for general administrative work and some desktop publishing. At home, I use Windows, mostly for gaming and surfing the net. I like the idea of Linux, but am not yet convinced enough to go through any trouble to do it and then have to worry about compatability issues. What argument would you use to persuade me (and others standing on the fence)?
Will these two phenomenon affect sea water salinity? I read recently that decreased salinity is a serious threat to the sub ocean currents that keep our global climate stable. Does anyone have a link that discusses the point?
I'm not asking for compliance with rogue states. Hell, I didn't even say all "legitimate" governments. I said "democratic." This would not include, for instance, Saudia Arabia, China, or Cuba.
Also (and I'm exercising my freedom to name call here), not one post, with the exception of those by hogsback, has made an argument that would hold up in a logic or rhetoric class.
B) I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and a journalist. I believe in unmitigated free speech as protected by OUR constitution. Some countries don't agree with the concept of unmitigated free speech, even though they are democratic nations (UK, France, Germany). I think we should respect that. It's not up to me to revolutionize another country's ideas of right and wrong when they are run by freely elected leaders. To impose our ideals and standards is the opposite of freedom, and we're well hated for it throughout the rest of the world.
Yeah. I guess my point is that it's frightening that the burden is on me to avoid being tracked.
What's the solution? Forbid the government from storing information like that? Limit how long they can store information on law abiding citizens? I have no idea.
I'm not saying that they would win every case, or even that they would prosecute in every case. Most often, the first course of action would be a warning, or request, by the country. I'm not saying that I have the answers, just that we shouldn't just have free reign because it's too hard to determine a solution.
There are other solutions to the problem. I'm just saying that just becuase it's hard, or the technology is different, does not excuse someone from being liable.
Discussions like this open a forum for figuring out resonable solutions (or in your case, name calling).
For instance: One solution we use in the US to try to curtail underage viewing of porn is to send the requester to a page stating what content they might expect and say that they must be 18. If someone ignores this and continues to the site, then they are the one breaking the law.
Also, you'll notice in the original post, that I mention the server operator (a business owner, presumably trying to earn a profit) not individuals. I also specify democratic nations, but that is a different discussion altogether.
You can't hide behind the "this is a new system of delivering information" arguments because it's still a system of delivering information (and goods and services). The technology may be different, but it's up to those developing and utilizing the technology to figure out a way to follow the law.
The burden is on the business (or server) to obey the laws of the land where they operate. Hosting a web site should not exclude a person or company from liability. If I print a newsletter in the US and then drop it by plane in France, I should adhere to French law. If I host a web site that French citizens have access to, likewise.
Also, ignorance is no excuse. Should I happen to travel to another country, the burden is on me to learn the traffic laws before I rent a car and drive around.
I really do wonder how many petite women will feel the need to own one of these.
I knew it, down deep in my bones, I knew that was exactly what I was dealing with everytime I've had to call Tech Support. At least twice, I've been on the phone with my provider and been the one to figure the problem out.
Isn't that how Napster started?
More importantly, what right do they have to stop it? I'd be interested in knowing precisely what grounds CA has to stop it.
Yeah, I'm sure he wouldn't have said a word if it was in his party's best interest, instead of the two opposing parties. It just seems like a misuse of power. I know, I know, why am I surprised!?
It would be nice if we could just get the politians to read the User Manual. 8)
"Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh has threatened legal action against Kansans who engage in vote-swapping. Here's a real gem from the AP article: 'Thornburgh said Wednesday he wasn't sure whether the practice was illegal, and he wasn't aware of any vote swapping in Kansas. However, he also said he would go to court if anyone tried it in the state.' Does this scare anyone else?
Every generation of people at the threshold of major transformation has argued the same (some with justification). Technological advance is always good, but is subject to human nature. Thus, sometimes it used good and well, while othertimes it is not. Paranoia doesn't stop technologies from being abused, but education usually does.
What about 3DO?
If the FBI suspect that you are armed, then they just go in with weapons drawn, making for a much more dangerous situation. If you draw your weapon to "defend" what they have a warrent to take, then you get killed.
According to Steve Ballmer, "I can assure you that...the source code...has not been modified or tampered with in any way." Damn.
Ethically, there is no problem. Journalism's primary goal is the distribution of information, not profit seeking. Consequently, Andy should not be barred as a result of his position and /. should not censor him as a result thereof. If Andy has information that he knows interests a certain forum, he is ethically required to distribute that information.