Well they only have 2 donors that make up about 3/4 of the donations, so raising 20 million in a few days notice is nothing big. That is the problem they stand for anything that is anti-Bush without question, even if the policy is good. So Bush sends foreign aid to Africa for AIDS, so MoveOn.org must be against that, and that is one of the biggest problems, they don't have any values to stand on, they just stand on the opposite values as Bush.
Let me try to explain this to you. It is impossible for companies to censor anything. Period. And you want to know something the company as an entity can only donate the max of $2000 in the US. Now that is not to say there are kooke frindge organizations like MoveOn.org that raise money and then put ads out on the networks.
To answer you questions:
And who really runs the government? Elected officials. They may cator to donors.
Do you really believe members of Congress or the President get elected just by the goodwill of the people? In the end that is what it comes down to, because when you enter the booth, it is just you and a lever. So to use an over used quote to demonstrate, "A Person is smart, the people are stupid". Also many polls show that 50% of the people don't really decide who they are going to vote for until they get into the polling both. So I still beleive in democracy, but maybe that is just because I am conservative and beleive the peolpe still have the power.
No it's funding from companies. I know you are going to hate me using this as an example. George Bush raised 150 million+ for the campaign this year, you want to know the average donation? It's around 200 dollars. So I really doubt companies are funding politices with BIG MONEY.
In the future censoring by companies will be as bad as censoring by the government. And agains only the government to censor, because a company cannot throw you in jail for talking bad about it. A company cannot lock you away. A company cannot do anything, because they don't have that kind of power. The worst they can do is sue you, and most of those suites are thrown out or not even attembed because of how bad it looks for the company. Remember what happened with the kid from MikeRowSoft.com and when the lawyers went after him. Remember the cry out on/.
Just one more time so you will remember COMPANIES DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR ANYTHING.
Why is napster and kazaa responsible for the content trading? Why is Microsoft responsible for a admin that doesn't upgrade their server? Why does the RIAA goto the ISP's to get information?
The simple answer is because ownership is 7/10 of the law and who ever owns the actual hardware is responsible under current laws.
This writer of the article is a journalistic kooke
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
The writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability. Even though they allow their servers to be used with public access doesn't mean the servers are public domain. The servers belong to the company, and the company can do what ever they want with them, including deleting files at will. Granted companies don't do this because it is bad PR, but it is totally with in their rights.
So when he wrote, "For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship." I just about lost it because it shows how little this guy actually knows about the issues he is addressing. Also as a side note you cannot censor published content, you can restrict it, but the litteral word of censor is not possible to do on published content. So the government can never censor published content.
I summary, this writer is a moron, and just lobbing un founded accusations out there and hope one hits the wall and sticks. I think both the US and UK ISP did the right thing and it was probably with in their corporate policies.
I really wish/. had a better bogus story/content filter (notice I didn't say censor, because/. is not part of the government, so they are unable to censor anything:) ).
I totally agree, with your first point, and these scare tactics are done because of over zealous lawyers, that will milk you for everything you have. It is much easier to take the information down and deal with one person than a team of lawyers.
I also on a side note the writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability. Even though they allow their servers to be used with public access doesn't mean the servers are public domain. The servers belong to the company, and the company can do what ever they want with them, including deleting files at will. Granted companies don't do this because it is bad PR, but it is totally with in their rights.
So when he wrote, "For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship." I just about lost it because it shows how little this guy actually knows about the issues he is addressing. Also as a side note you cannot censor published content, you can restrict it, but the litteral word of censor is not possible to do on published content. So the government can never censor published content.
I summary, this writer is a moron, and just lobbing un founded accusations out there and hope one hits the wall and sticks. I think both the US and UK ISP did the right thing and it was probably with in their corporate policies.
I really wish/. had a better bogus story/content filter (notice I didn't say censor, because/. is not part of the government, so they are unable to censor anything:) ).
Oh yeah, so you say. I can make up something to justify something that is totally not true too. I doubt you even work at a university, and what you are talking about is a grand jury, in which cases are sealed. But I guess you just broke that not telling anybody about it, huh?
No that would be against the seperation of power that is granted under the constitution. Congress makes the laws and judges impliments them. There is nothing saying a judge has to issue a warent, then what is the use for have the judge even in the process. Not to mention a law like that would violoate 235 years of how consitutional law has worked. So I think you should re-read it, the patriote act just consolidates many common warrents and gives a broader range for those warrents, but none the less a Judge still has the final descistion. This is exactly what I was talking about when you listen to a moron on the news that has never read the thing offering commentation on it.
You know the fable about hte Pied-Piper that played a flute and led the rats out of town isn't just a made up story it is about the general population following somebody in ingnorance.
I am only talking to the people in this forum that I called the PRESIDENT, Mr. Bush. It is PRESIDENT Bush, not Mr. Show a little respect, if not for the man, at least the position.
I totally agree with you. This is what is usually called BIAS, and is usually used to push a point. Since it is an election year you will see a lot of this.
Remember, the press only uses the facts if it supports the story they are trying to tell.
What conviently got left out of this/. new post was, that what sparked all this was an unusual death of this guys wife. It didn't really say what she died of, but I am guessing an autopsy led to some kind of biological agent. So the FBI was probably involved and this is where everything started.
People know very little about the patriot act, it is actually hard to use it, because you have to convince a federal judge to grant a warrent under the act. It doesn't give the government a be-all end all right of invastion of priviouy, it just consolidates many of the common requests for wire-tapping and other things, that would require seperate warrents. So in essesnse it speeds up a process doesn't change it or grant any more rights or take away any more. This is probably one of the biggest mist conseptions that has been spread by the anti-patriot act people, and most of those people just use it to bash the president, they aren't really concerned with the rights of the people, just more of gaining power back.
Also in the wired article it states: "But Kurtz's work and his beliefs are more radical than those of many of his peers. He has written proposals for releasing mutant flies into restaurants, and demonstrated methods for destroying genetically modified crops. And it is Kurtz's views, his supporters say, that have Kurtz on the wrong side of a federal investigation sparked by the death of his wife, Hope Kurtz."
This professor has talked about in papers of releasing genetically engineered flies into resurants, and destroying crops that have been genetically modified. These might be on the lower end of the terrorism totem-pole, but it is still a terroist act. And all of this was sparked by a pecular death of his wife, normally deaths are handled by local cops, unless something really weird is going on that requires the FBI.
So this is IMHO a perfectly good use of the Patriot act. Just remember, that a judge has to agree to sign the warrent inorder for the patriot act to be used. And many of the Federal judges in the past couple of months have rejected the use of the patriot act for stuff they didn't deam in the realm of what is required to warrent one. In addition Ashcroft has been rejected many times by Federal judges including a couple big ones in Chicago about doctors records. So the author of this/. news post is totally off base and probably has a bias against Aschroft (i.e. Bush).
Take my comments at what you will, but if you want the real truth go read the patriot act on the U.S. Congress web site.
So what Clay is saying is that he wants restrictions imposed on the OS of who can use it and how they can use it? Hmmm... That sounds familure... Basically this is actually good, because it allows Linux to go under heavy development in a sector that it doesn't often get used in. You not only get some of the people that have worked in this industry the longest working to make Linux better, but you now have something on the average of a 4 billion dollar R&D budget.
I don't get why this is a problem. Nobody seems to have a problem using military developed technology. You know like the internet (a nuke proof network). And companies employeed and funded mostly by the Military, such as Xerox Palo Alto (Ethernet, and GUI). Nobody seemed to have much of a problem when FreeBSD got a huge development budge from the DoD, and I bet a ton of you are using Reiser FS, which was DoD funded.
So I say this bluntly, shutup, and get off your high horse. Let the DoD get a return on it's billions, yes billions of dollars it has pumped into this community, openly and freely.
Clay only has a foot to stand on if he doesn't use the internet, ethernet, gui, reiser fs, freebsd, and the many other DoD funded technologies.
You really have no clue do you? Why do you think company's get discounts on the average of 20%? Is it because they only bug a few dozen phones?
Oh, wait: NO.
I am not talking about just phones that are purchased with corp money, I am talking about employee's that buy the phone and then get to expense the bill each month. The employee that gets a phone at the discount of 20%, the employee that buys the phone because he is on the road alot. These are all corporate customers, and by the way to US Government is the largest purchaser of cell phones.
It is usually cheaper to settle out of court than put this in the public domain. Look at what happened to OJ for instance, he was found guilty, but everybody thinks he is guilty except in the eyes of the law. Microsoft doesn't care what the law thinks of them, they care what their customers think of them, and that is why it is always cheaper to settle, and not set a president.
They said it was filed 7 weeks ago, that doesn't seem like a long time to pan out. This reminds me of the cigarett battle with "big" tobaco. Where states got a ton of money to combat tobaco use and give out to people for health care. Then the states turned around and used that money for everything but the intended use. It is going to happen here, because the population of MN isn't going to see a dime.
For the same reason states got cigeratte money instead of the public for smoking and putting up with second hand smoke. Then they turned around and used that money for everything but the intended purpose. Which I really think what MN is hoping to do here.
What is Minnesota running out of money just like the EU? So they try to hit up the cash cow, I think we will see more and more of these suits comming out, and all that it is going to do is make it so generic that they will get thrown out on the spot.
They provide a compiled copy, and you can convert the VS.Net File to any number of non-MS IDE's. Such as #Develop (Open Source) and/or NAnt, can also use VS.Net files when compiling solutions. But you are right on them testing the water.
It is that I cannot get a good cell phone anymore that doesn't come with a camera, so I have to decide to either leave my cell phone in the car while I am at work or get a dumbed down basic cell phone.
These manufactures really aren't thinking of the part of the market that buys the most cell phones, and that is the corporations, and most corporations have strict guidlines against cameras. So it really blows, and I hope they come to they senses and stop marketing to the teeny-boppers. At least they could put out comparable phone that doesn't have that camera.
Listen I just copy and pasted the HTML from the place that I got the original post from. If you have a problem with all the link go talk to the original poster.
The Windows Installer XML (WiX - pronounced "wicks") is a toolset for advanced Windows developers that builds Windows installation packages from XML source code. Overall, WiX can improve the process of how software developers release software.
WiX has grown organically and spread rapidly inside Microsoft for our own product builds (e.g. SQL, BizTalk, Exchange, Office, Virtual Server, many MSN properties) and there is a healthy internal community already contributing to the toolset.
Many Microsoft product development teams use WiX to deliver their installation packages. Utilizing the 1.0 Common Language Runtime, WiX builds with Visual Studio.Net 2003 on Windows 2000, Windows XP, and will be of use with future Windows offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
Well they only have 2 donors that make up about 3/4 of the donations, so raising 20 million in a few days notice is nothing big. That is the problem they stand for anything that is anti-Bush without question, even if the policy is good. So Bush sends foreign aid to Africa for AIDS, so MoveOn.org must be against that, and that is one of the biggest problems, they don't have any values to stand on, they just stand on the opposite values as Bush.
Let me try to explain this to you. It is impossible for companies to censor anything. Period. And you want to know something the company as an entity can only donate the max of $2000 in the US. Now that is not to say there are kooke frindge organizations like MoveOn.org that raise money and then put ads out on the networks.
/.
To answer you questions:
And who really runs the government?
Elected officials. They may cator to donors.
Do you really believe members of Congress or the President get elected just by the goodwill of the people?
In the end that is what it comes down to, because when you enter the booth, it is just you and a lever. So to use an over used quote to demonstrate, "A Person is smart, the people are stupid". Also many polls show that 50% of the people don't really decide who they are going to vote for until they get into the polling both. So I still beleive in democracy, but maybe that is just because I am conservative and beleive the peolpe still have the power.
No it's funding from companies.
I know you are going to hate me using this as an example. George Bush raised 150 million+ for the campaign this year, you want to know the average donation? It's around 200 dollars. So I really doubt companies are funding politices with BIG MONEY.
In the future censoring by companies will be as bad as censoring by the government.
And agains only the government to censor, because a company cannot throw you in jail for talking bad about it. A company cannot lock you away. A company cannot do anything, because they don't have that kind of power. The worst they can do is sue you, and most of those suites are thrown out or not even attembed because of how bad it looks for the company. Remember what happened with the kid from MikeRowSoft.com and when the lawyers went after him. Remember the cry out on
Just one more time so you will remember COMPANIES DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR ANYTHING.
Why is napster and kazaa responsible for the content trading? Why is Microsoft responsible for a admin that doesn't upgrade their server? Why does the RIAA goto the ISP's to get information?
The simple answer is because ownership is 7/10 of the law and who ever owns the actual hardware is responsible under current laws.
The writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability. Even though they allow their servers to be used with public access doesn't mean the servers are public domain. The servers belong to the company, and the company can do what ever they want with them, including deleting files at will. Granted companies don't do this because it is bad PR, but it is totally with in their rights.
/. had a better bogus story/content filter (notice I didn't say censor, because /. is not part of the government, so they are unable to censor anything :) ).
So when he wrote, "For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship." I just about lost it because it shows how little this guy actually knows about the issues he is addressing. Also as a side note you cannot censor published content, you can restrict it, but the litteral word of censor is not possible to do on published content. So the government can never censor published content.
I summary, this writer is a moron, and just lobbing un founded accusations out there and hope one hits the wall and sticks. I think both the US and UK ISP did the right thing and it was probably with in their corporate policies.
I really wish
I totally agree, with your first point, and these scare tactics are done because of over zealous lawyers, that will milk you for everything you have. It is much easier to take the information down and deal with one person than a team of lawyers.
/. had a better bogus story/content filter (notice I didn't say censor, because /. is not part of the government, so they are unable to censor anything :) ).
I also on a side note the writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability. Even though they allow their servers to be used with public access doesn't mean the servers are public domain. The servers belong to the company, and the company can do what ever they want with them, including deleting files at will. Granted companies don't do this because it is bad PR, but it is totally with in their rights.
So when he wrote, "For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship." I just about lost it because it shows how little this guy actually knows about the issues he is addressing. Also as a side note you cannot censor published content, you can restrict it, but the litteral word of censor is not possible to do on published content. So the government can never censor published content.
I summary, this writer is a moron, and just lobbing un founded accusations out there and hope one hits the wall and sticks. I think both the US and UK ISP did the right thing and it was probably with in their corporate policies.
I really wish
Oh yeah, so you say. I can make up something to justify something that is totally not true too. I doubt you even work at a university, and what you are talking about is a grand jury, in which cases are sealed. But I guess you just broke that not telling anybody about it, huh?
No that would be against the seperation of power that is granted under the constitution. Congress makes the laws and judges impliments them. There is nothing saying a judge has to issue a warent, then what is the use for have the judge even in the process. Not to mention a law like that would violoate 235 years of how consitutional law has worked. So I think you should re-read it, the patriote act just consolidates many common warrents and gives a broader range for those warrents, but none the less a Judge still has the final descistion. This is exactly what I was talking about when you listen to a moron on the news that has never read the thing offering commentation on it.
You know the fable about hte Pied-Piper that played a flute and led the rats out of town isn't just a made up story it is about the general population following somebody in ingnorance.
I am only talking to the people in this forum that I called the PRESIDENT, Mr. Bush. It is PRESIDENT Bush, not Mr. Show a little respect, if not for the man, at least the position.
What gore conviently left out is that the patriot act still requires a warrent signed by a judge, if you don't beleive me go read the act.
I totally agree with you. This is what is usually called BIAS, and is usually used to push a point. Since it is an election year you will see a lot of this.
/. new post was, that what sparked all this was an unusual death of this guys wife. It didn't really say what she died of, but I am guessing an autopsy led to some kind of biological agent. So the FBI was probably involved and this is where everything started.
Remember, the press only uses the facts if it supports the story they are trying to tell.
What conviently got left out of this
People know very little about the patriot act, it is actually hard to use it, because you have to convince a federal judge to grant a warrent under the act. It doesn't give the government a be-all end all right of invastion of priviouy, it just consolidates many of the common requests for wire-tapping and other things, that would require seperate warrents. So in essesnse it speeds up a process doesn't change it or grant any more rights or take away any more. This is probably one of the biggest mist conseptions that has been spread by the anti-patriot act people, and most of those people just use it to bash the president, they aren't really concerned with the rights of the people, just more of gaining power back.
/. news post is totally off base and probably has a bias against Aschroft (i.e. Bush).
Also in the wired article it states: "But Kurtz's work and his beliefs are more radical than those of many of his peers. He has written proposals for releasing mutant flies into restaurants, and demonstrated methods for destroying genetically modified crops. And it is Kurtz's views, his supporters say, that have Kurtz on the wrong side of a federal investigation sparked by the death of his wife, Hope Kurtz."
This professor has talked about in papers of releasing genetically engineered flies into resurants, and destroying crops that have been genetically modified. These might be on the lower end of the terrorism totem-pole, but it is still a terroist act. And all of this was sparked by a pecular death of his wife, normally deaths are handled by local cops, unless something really weird is going on that requires the FBI.
So this is IMHO a perfectly good use of the Patriot act. Just remember, that a judge has to agree to sign the warrent inorder for the patriot act to be used. And many of the Federal judges in the past couple of months have rejected the use of the patriot act for stuff they didn't deam in the realm of what is required to warrent one. In addition Ashcroft has been rejected many times by Federal judges including a couple big ones in Chicago about doctors records. So the author of this
Take my comments at what you will, but if you want the real truth go read the patriot act on the U.S. Congress web site.
I really hope the court doesn't actually take this seriously.
So what Clay is saying is that he wants restrictions imposed on the OS of who can use it and how they can use it? Hmmm... That sounds familure... Basically this is actually good, because it allows Linux to go under heavy development in a sector that it doesn't often get used in. You not only get some of the people that have worked in this industry the longest working to make Linux better, but you now have something on the average of a 4 billion dollar R&D budget.
I don't get why this is a problem. Nobody seems to have a problem using military developed technology. You know like the internet (a nuke proof network). And companies employeed and funded mostly by the Military, such as Xerox Palo Alto (Ethernet, and GUI). Nobody seemed to have much of a problem when FreeBSD got a huge development budge from the DoD, and I bet a ton of you are using Reiser FS, which was DoD funded.
So I say this bluntly, shutup, and get off your high horse. Let the DoD get a return on it's billions, yes billions of dollars it has pumped into this community, openly and freely.
Clay only has a foot to stand on if he doesn't use the internet, ethernet, gui, reiser fs, freebsd, and the many other DoD funded technologies.
You really have no clue do you? Why do you think company's get discounts on the average of 20%? Is it because they only bug a few dozen phones?
Oh, wait: NO.
I am not talking about just phones that are purchased with corp money, I am talking about employee's that buy the phone and then get to expense the bill each month. The employee that gets a phone at the discount of 20%, the employee that buys the phone because he is on the road alot. These are all corporate customers, and by the way to US Government is the largest purchaser of cell phones.
It is usually cheaper to settle out of court than put this in the public domain. Look at what happened to OJ for instance, he was found guilty, but everybody thinks he is guilty except in the eyes of the law. Microsoft doesn't care what the law thinks of them, they care what their customers think of them, and that is why it is always cheaper to settle, and not set a president.
They said it was filed 7 weeks ago, that doesn't seem like a long time to pan out. This reminds me of the cigarett battle with "big" tobaco. Where states got a ton of money to combat tobaco use and give out to people for health care. Then the states turned around and used that money for everything but the intended use. It is going to happen here, because the population of MN isn't going to see a dime.
For the same reason states got cigeratte money instead of the public for smoking and putting up with second hand smoke. Then they turned around and used that money for everything but the intended purpose. Which I really think what MN is hoping to do here.
What is Minnesota running out of money just like the EU? So they try to hit up the cash cow, I think we will see more and more of these suits comming out, and all that it is going to do is make it so generic that they will get thrown out on the spot.
Nice spelling jackass. So how exactly is Middle School it has been so long since I have been there.
They provide a compiled copy, and you can convert the VS.Net File to any number of non-MS IDE's. Such as #Develop (Open Source) and/or NAnt, can also use VS.Net files when compiling solutions. But you are right on them testing the water.
It is that I cannot get a good cell phone anymore that doesn't come with a camera, so I have to decide to either leave my cell phone in the car while I am at work or get a dumbed down basic cell phone.
These manufactures really aren't thinking of the part of the market that buys the most cell phones, and that is the corporations, and most corporations have strict guidlines against cameras. So it really blows, and I hope they come to they senses and stop marketing to the teeny-boppers. At least they could put out comparable phone that doesn't have that camera.
And that makes it any better? I am sure somebody had to write that perl script.
blah, blah, blah, another idiot flapping his keyboard fingers on slashdot.
Listen I just copy and pasted the HTML from the place that I got the original post from. If you have a problem with all the link go talk to the original poster.