I don't really care for the licensing terms, as long as the source is available for private perusal.
But opening up your source-code repository is not quite cutting it to me. Where be the releases? I want to see zimbra-N.K.tar.bz2, along with an earlier zimbra-N.K-1.tar.bz2, and, maybe, the preview of zimbra-N+1.beta.tar.bz2.
Obviously, the man was driven to death by the evil corporations dealing in virtual worlds' artifacts. His "gaming" was, in fact, earning a (hard) living. Just another casualty of America's insatiable corporate greed.
I don't mean, alienating them as employees — that's another story. I mean alienating them as computer users — by bullshit like blocking certain sites or other services (such as instant messengers), in particular.
You will then not have to chase the violators and waste time (money) on the fruitless pursuit... The pursuit, which also severely hampers the productivity of the best of your users... "Access from home? No, you'll need five approvals for me to allow that."
The leaner, lighter, faster, and most importantly, BSD Licensed
It seems profoundly stupid to stress out the BSD license as the "most important" feature of this new software.
GPL may not be as free as BSD-license, but one needs to be a real zealot to switch based primarily on this reason. I hope, FreeBSD will wait for it to work on other platforms and only switch because it is "leaner, lighter, and faster".
That, and Apple's managing to create the vast market for iPod addons. New cars come with option of being "pre-wired for iPod". You can buy an "iPod-ready" backpack. Various speaker-systems — portable and otherwise, including waterproof ones — come with iPod slots.
True, many of those accessories will work with any music player, but many would not, or not as well...
I doubt, Apple will tarnish its image by pressing it, but DMCA seems to apply. In fact, it may be out of Apple's hands. IANAL, but they may need to clarify, that they added the new checksum/whatever not to limit whatever it is, DMCA will try to help them uphold, but for some other, non-DMCA protected reason.
Otherwise, the prosecutors may have to enforce the Act whether Apple wants them to or not...
You've heard of that that uber-illiberal state, have not you? This is were the main Senator Kennedy is coming from, along with Senator Kerry...
Also known affectionately as "Taxachusetts" is now considering:
Technology would track every car and send their drivers a bill for 5 cents for every mile driven.
Woo-hoo!.. I guess, as long as it is for raising revenue (which will negatively affect everyone), rather than for fighting crime (which mostly negatively affects criminals), it is Ok with illiberals...
Security is relative. Although 100% is not achiveable, gains can, obviously, be permanent. For example, I can travel between cities without serious fear of being robbed on the highway today — a dream for the medieval travelers. This gain in security is as permanent as the state. And should the state collapse, I'll have those liberties I traded in for the security back.
People in UK allowed CCTV cameras to be put everywhere.... Result is that crime rate has not decreased.
My understanding is just the opposite, actually — the crime did come down slightly, but — more importantly — the number of unsolved crimes plummeted. Putting the criminals behind bars is expected to pay off.
O, brave one! Don't be too modest — describe your heroic acts against oppression to us.
Have you called a policemen Nazi? Were you sent to a labor camp over that — tell me, I'll try to help your family survive, because, surely, they were fired from their jobs, their modest property confiscated, and they must now be starving. Brown-shirts must be beating them up weekly...
Oh, I know, you must be in hiding — I understand. What did you do to the Regime — post it all, Revolution needs to know its heroes!..
Either way the quote contains the adjectives — to qualify for the dire prediction, the liberty needs to be essential and the expected gain in security (or safety — interestingly, in Ukrainian and Russian these words are the same. I suspect, in Franklin's times there was little distinction between them in English too) — only temporary...
Franklin is not placing limits on the types of liberty and security that it's acceptable to trade, but rather making a blanket statement that liberty is essential and security is temporary.
What makes you think so? I don't see it this way at all — the adjectives become rather redundant in this case. Franklin surely had his way with words — a persuasive speaker, and established writer, I doubt, he would've blundered like this.
Whoever said, your interpretation would not make sense — if the security to be gained is permanent, it may make sense to trade a non-essential liberty for it. Heck, one may even agree to give up an essential liberty.
For example, a large (and vocal) part of Americans argue, that giving up the liberty of carrying guns is worth the increase in security. Whether they are right estimating the gain is another story, but I suspect, the original poster (who misquoted Benjamin Franklin while criticizing the Germans), agrees with them...
People that trade freedom for security shall recieve neither.
The actual quote, which you failed to attribute, is by Benjamin Franklin and reads:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Note the adjectives "essential" and "temporary". To earn the "Insightful" moderations, which the clueless mods have given you already anyway, you must demonstrate, that the given-up liberty is essential, and that the gained security is only temporary.
In a recent blog posting, a German operator of a Tor anonymous proxy server revealed that he was arrested by German police officers at the end of July.
Had it really been the Nazi's Gestapo, he would not be posting anything in September...
Zonk et al. really need to glue a nicely printed and framed quote of the Godwin's Law on their beds' footboards, to make it the first thing they see waking up...
Godwin's Law/prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
Since the time you're referring to, Russia is supposed to have made a swing back to a hydrocarbon-rich power with a booming economy.
They have — even if the oil and gas are the only drivers of the boom. That's my point — they (Russian government) are rich, but they wouldn't spend the $15K on cleaning up a particularly messy site.
I wonder how much does a Tu-95 long-range patrol cost?
Well, it can not possibly cost less $1000, because that, roughly, is the price of airfare between their bases and wherever they are flying to. In reality, it costs much more, of course, because of all the between-flight maintenance, etc. There have already been more than 15 such flights for sure...
For $15,000, the radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova could be dug up, saving an estimated 350 lives.
15 years ago Russia was so desperate, US were sending them emergency food parcels. My friends from MGU (Moscow State University) told me about receiving American military MREs in their dorm. American charities operated soup kitchens in Russian cities — welcomed by the homeless, except when the personnel happened to be Black, which many bums found denigrating...
Today their anti-American sentiment is at the Cold War-era high, and they think, they can afford to send strategic bombers around and into our airspace — to "exchange smiles with American pilots"... The Evil Empire delenda est — too bad, we failed to crush them completely.
And before you attempt to compare Russia's priorities with the plight of "American poor", I'll remind you, that the land in question was polluted by the Russian/Soviet imperial government, whereas the American poor's plight is the sole responsibility of the individual and, maybe, their parents.
"The Nation" are further to the left than the wall... Quoting them is not "data".
Argentina's problems came entirely from major mismanagement and rejection of the free market principles. The privatized their state-owned enterprises, which was the right thing to do. But then the state spent the proceeds from privatization on propping up the local currency... Voters loved the short-term gains (something stock-holders are frequently accused of preferring, BTw), and when the money ran out, the government began borrowing.
Bin Laden has not been convicted for the 9/11 attacks. Has only been indicted for killing five Americans and two Indians in a 1995 truck bombing; he is officially still only a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
You are changing the subject from the definition of terrorism to whether bin Laden is guilty of anything.
Let me ask you a simple, "yes-or-no" question. Do you believe, America's killing of Zarqawi in June last year was an Act of Terror?
According to international law Bin Laden is a civilian.
That's would be a flaw in the "international law"... Bin Laden is not a civilian. Nor are the members of gangs like Hezbollah, FARC, Red-Army Faction.
But, Ok, even if were to accept him as a "civilian" (unlawful combatant), it is still not terrorism to go after him, because the goal of going after him is neither political, nor religious, nor ideological in nature.
Do yourself a favor and try thinking critically, not just blindly accepting your government's public relations campaigns as truth.
You really believe, we hate the man, who financed the killing of 3000 Americans and continues to gleefully delight in that fact because of our "government's public relations campaign"?
The RIAA is not a musician's union. They are an association of record labels.
This distinction is too detailed and irrelevant — even if they were a musician's union, they would still be attacked for copyright pooling. The article — and most of the discussion — are raging against the very concept of the marketplace participants uniting to further their interests.
America's perception of this concept is hypocritical. When the entities are people, we tend to nod in approval (even if they are Teamsters scum), but when they are businesses, we hate them (even if they are artists, such as Metallica).
In my opinion, all such unions should be monitored with suspicion and anti-trust laws should be applied vigilantly against both businesses and people agreeing (conspiring) to raise their prices.
That record companies are being blasted here for merely pooling their copyright interests together to reduce the infamously high costs of litigation, while various union scum (UPS vs. Teamsters, NYC vs. the union of MTA employees) are getting sympathy in their racketeering, is an example of dual standard.
Slashdot Mirror
What's "hypocrite" about Larry Craig? Did he ask the undercover officer to (same-sex) marry him?
I browse "The Nation"'s drivel to know, what the illiberal enemies are up to...
Now, thanks to KDawson, I can get some forewarnings right here on Slashdot.
The sooner the comrade gets sent to Siberia (for having been born and having relatives in a capitalist country) the better...
I don't really care for the licensing terms, as long as the source is available for private perusal.
But opening up your source-code repository is not quite cutting it to me. Where be the releases? I want to see zimbra-N.K.tar.bz2, along with an earlier zimbra-N.K-1.tar.bz2, and, maybe, the preview of zimbra-N+1.beta.tar.bz2.
That's Open Source...
Obviously, the man was driven to death by the evil corporations dealing in virtual worlds' artifacts. His "gaming" was, in fact, earning a (hard) living. Just another casualty of America's insatiable corporate greed.
I don't mean, alienating them as employees — that's another story. I mean alienating them as computer users — by bullshit like blocking certain sites or other services (such as instant messengers), in particular.
You will then not have to chase the violators and waste time (money) on the fruitless pursuit... The pursuit, which also severely hampers the productivity of the best of your users... "Access from home? No, you'll need five approvals for me to allow that."
It seems profoundly stupid to stress out the BSD license as the "most important" feature of this new software.
GPL may not be as free as BSD-license, but one needs to be a real zealot to switch based primarily on this reason. I hope, FreeBSD will wait for it to work on other platforms and only switch because it is "leaner, lighter, and faster".
Oh, I see. Well, if such is your definition of "cowardice", why don't you define "black" as "relecting all colors" to really confuse matters?..
As for you rejection of Godwin's Law, well, I'm will to wait for you to grow up...
I guess, we reserve the harshest namecalling for ourselves and our friends...
That's the draw.
That, and Apple's managing to create the vast market for iPod addons. New cars come with option of being "pre-wired for iPod". You can buy an "iPod-ready" backpack. Various speaker-systems — portable and otherwise, including waterproof ones — come with iPod slots.
True, many of those accessories will work with any music player, but many would not, or not as well...
I doubt, Apple will tarnish its image by pressing it, but DMCA seems to apply. In fact, it may be out of Apple's hands. IANAL, but they may need to clarify, that they added the new checksum/whatever not to limit whatever it is, DMCA will try to help them uphold, but for some other, non-DMCA protected reason.
Otherwise, the prosecutors may have to enforce the Act whether Apple wants them to or not...
You've heard of that that uber-illiberal state, have not you? This is were the main Senator Kennedy is coming from, along with Senator Kerry...
Also known affectionately as "Taxachusetts" is now considering:
Woo-hoo!.. I guess, as long as it is for raising revenue (which will negatively affect everyone), rather than for fighting crime (which mostly negatively affects criminals), it is Ok with illiberals...
Security is relative. Although 100% is not achiveable, gains can, obviously, be permanent. For example, I can travel between cities without serious fear of being robbed on the highway today — a dream for the medieval travelers. This gain in security is as permanent as the state. And should the state collapse, I'll have those liberties I traded in for the security back.
My understanding is just the opposite, actually — the crime did come down slightly, but — more importantly — the number of unsolved crimes plummeted. Putting the criminals behind bars is expected to pay off.
What are sources for this information?
O, brave one! Don't be too modest — describe your heroic acts against oppression to us.
Have you called a policemen Nazi? Were you sent to a labor camp over that — tell me, I'll try to help your family survive, because, surely, they were fired from their jobs, their modest property confiscated, and they must now be starving. Brown-shirts must be beating them up weekly...
Oh, I know, you must be in hiding — I understand. What did you do to the Regime — post it all, Revolution needs to know its heroes!..
My source is this obnoxiously-named domain.
Either way the quote contains the adjectives — to qualify for the dire prediction, the liberty needs to be essential and the expected gain in security (or safety — interestingly, in Ukrainian and Russian these words are the same. I suspect, in Franklin's times there was little distinction between them in English too) — only temporary...
What makes you think so? I don't see it this way at all — the adjectives become rather redundant in this case. Franklin surely had his way with words — a persuasive speaker, and established writer, I doubt, he would've blundered like this.
Whoever said, your interpretation would not make sense — if the security to be gained is permanent, it may make sense to trade a non-essential liberty for it. Heck, one may even agree to give up an essential liberty.
For example, a large (and vocal) part of Americans argue, that giving up the liberty of carrying guns is worth the increase in security. Whether they are right estimating the gain is another story, but I suspect, the original poster (who misquoted Benjamin Franklin while criticizing the Germans), agrees with them...
The actual quote, which you failed to attribute, is by Benjamin Franklin and reads:
Note the adjectives "essential" and "temporary". To earn the "Insightful" moderations, which the clueless mods have given you already anyway, you must demonstrate, that the given-up liberty is essential, and that the gained security is only temporary.
Can you? I don't think so...
Had it really been the Nazi's Gestapo, he would not be posting anything in September...
Zonk et al. really need to glue a nicely printed and framed quote of the Godwin's Law on their beds' footboards, to make it the first thing they see waking up...
They have — even if the oil and gas are the only drivers of the boom. That's my point — they (Russian government) are rich, but they wouldn't spend the $15K on cleaning up a particularly messy site.
Well, it can not possibly cost less $1000, because that, roughly, is the price of airfare between their bases and wherever they are flying to. In reality, it costs much more, of course, because of all the between-flight maintenance, etc. There have already been more than 15 such flights for sure...
15 years ago Russia was so desperate, US were sending them emergency food parcels. My friends from MGU (Moscow State University) told me about receiving American military MREs in their dorm. American charities operated soup kitchens in Russian cities — welcomed by the homeless, except when the personnel happened to be Black, which many bums found denigrating...
Today their anti-American sentiment is at the Cold War-era high, and they think, they can afford to send strategic bombers around and into our airspace — to "exchange smiles with American pilots"... The Evil Empire delenda est — too bad, we failed to crush them completely.
And before you attempt to compare Russia's priorities with the plight of "American poor", I'll remind you, that the land in question was polluted by the Russian/Soviet imperial government, whereas the American poor's plight is the sole responsibility of the individual and, maybe, their parents.
"The Nation" are further to the left than the wall... Quoting them is not "data".
Argentina's problems came entirely from major mismanagement and rejection of the free market principles. The privatized their state-owned enterprises, which was the right thing to do. But then the state spent the proceeds from privatization on propping up the local currency... Voters loved the short-term gains (something stock-holders are frequently accused of preferring, BTw), and when the money ran out, the government began borrowing.
"Multi-nationals" aren't to blame.
You are changing the subject from the definition of terrorism to whether bin Laden is guilty of anything.
Let me ask you a simple, "yes-or-no" question. Do you believe, America's killing of Zarqawi in June last year was an Act of Terror?
That's would be a flaw in the "international law"... Bin Laden is not a civilian. Nor are the members of gangs like Hezbollah, FARC, Red-Army Faction.
But, Ok, even if were to accept him as a "civilian" (unlawful combatant), it is still not terrorism to go after him, because the goal of going after him is neither political, nor religious, nor ideological in nature.
You really believe, we hate the man, who financed the killing of 3000 Americans and continues to gleefully delight in that fact because of our "government's public relations campaign"?
This distinction is too detailed and irrelevant — even if they were a musician's union, they would still be attacked for copyright pooling. The article — and most of the discussion — are raging against the very concept of the marketplace participants uniting to further their interests.
America's perception of this concept is hypocritical. When the entities are people, we tend to nod in approval (even if they are Teamsters scum), but when they are businesses, we hate them (even if they are artists, such as Metallica).
In my opinion, all such unions should be monitored with suspicion and anti-trust laws should be applied vigilantly against both businesses and people agreeing (conspiring) to raise their prices.
That record companies are being blasted here for merely pooling their copyright interests together to reduce the infamously high costs of litigation, while various union scum (UPS vs. Teamsters, NYC vs. the union of MTA employees) are getting sympathy in their racketeering, is an example of dual standard.
To defend their rights together and gain bargaining power?
According to this definition of yours bin Laden himself is a civilian.
The definitions is thus invalid. Have a good weekend.