At least there's actual criteria for determinining harmful content, rather than some vague concept of community standards
I suspect this si still unconstitutional. The first amendment doesn't have an age limit as far as I recall although they might have snuck an age clause somewhere in those 45 words.
If it is unconstitutional, then it's likely Jack Thompson knows this, and this is a pice of tactical manouevering from him. The only reason the ESA would have to challenge this is if they want to sell "harmful" games to minors. If they don't challenge it, the law stands. If they don't challenge it, Jack scores some P.R points.
True. The other aspect is that since its networking is so minimal, it's pretty secure until you actually add some extra software to connect to the internet...
Nice straw man you've got there. Burns nicely doesn't it. Unfortunately, your rebuttal is only a rebuttal tyo your own arguments.
So, let me ask you this - Why is it that if your lawn is private property, and a Mall is private property, people feel a perfectly valid right to wander into a mall, and just amble about the place, whereas they don't feel that way about your lawn?
What I am hearing here is "Private property should only be allowed when it doesn't inconvienience me".
Really? What I'm saying is that if you open up your private property to the public, then you have created a public place. Don't like people being in your Mall? Well then, close it. Allow people in by explicit invitation only.
That's weaselling out of it. They're not thrown because they're loitering. They're thrown out because they have an objection to the practices of a customer of the Mall.
No, if it's private property then it's private property.
Is there a sign saying no entry? A locked door? Anything to indicate that these people aren't welcome? If you were to strip naked there, would this be acceptable because it's private property? Chances are you could be prosecuted for public indecency. It's both private property and a public place. It is open to all of the public.
Doesn't matter what they think. Private property is private property even if you don't like that fact.
YES IT DOES!!!! This is the entire pooint of my argument. If people in general see it as a public place, then they will sympathise with people who are thrown out of a public place by private goons for excercising freedom of speech.
You have no right to be heard. I'm tired of everything being considered a "right" when it would otherwise be an inconvenience to comply.
No. You're missing the point again. If they make it clear that they are effectively being gagged, then they may well use this to gain public support.
Umm, because it's PRIVATE PROPERTY. Why is this so hard to understand?
So? This still begs the question. Why shouldn't people have freedom of speech on private proprty that's open to the public?
Bottom line: it's still private property even if you really really really don't like that idea. Your house is on a public street, so does that make your house public property because it's in such a public location. I mean, why would private property be on a public street? Inconceivable!
This is a silly argument. The street is public because it is open to the public. My house isn't because it isn't.
Ah, but he knows they can't come, becasue they're expected so they're unexpected. Which means they can come. Except Hawking obviouslyt expects them to know they're expected and therefore unexpected, so he should probably expect this.
If one is on private property and one is asked to leave by the owners or their representatives, one must leave or be subject to arrest for trespass. Nothing unreasonable about that, and I don't know how you can make it seem unreasonable.
These people are causing no problem. The Mall may well be private property, but it is still a public place. People who go there generally don't see it as private property because it's such a public area. They have a legitimate complaint and they're being barred from speaking about it in a location where they may be heard.
Why should people's freedom of speech be barred just because they're on private property?
Don't organize a protest on private property (such as in a mall), security can and almost certainly will ask you to leave
I think they just need to make it appear quite unreasonable when security asks them to leave. While they have every legal right to do so, if they ask people to leave when they're not causing a problem, and simply making a legitimate point, it offends a lot of people's sense of fair play.
Unless Theo can give a decent estimate of how much 'sales' OpenBSD has 'given' them, I doubt the upper brass at Hifn cares about Theo's whinging.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of their customers were BSD users. It's quite a common OS in the sort of application this chip is designed for.
If you don't believe me, we'll, the only reason NVIDIA's Linux support is miles ahead of ATI is due to the demand from Hollywood setups to use high-end-5000%-margin professional cards on Linux, not geeks on Slashdot playing Tuxracer.
PowerVR released a linux driver for the Kyro 2. The only people who would have had any interest in that were the geeks playing TuxRacer.
What makes you think the Linux geek market is so small? A lot of Linux nerds are early adopters, and are quite likely to choose one high end graphics card over another simply because it will run on their Linux partition. Half a million slashdot readers may not be the bulk of their market, but it's probably worth something.
A valid question, but I suspect the company is being a little more careful, and asking if they can be absolutely sure that it doesn't violate US Export licences.
Actually, I think the restriction only applies to code in computer readable formats (i.e. source code and executable binaries). Not documentation, so it seems they're playing extremely safely here.
Well, I quite like Singstar, and have been told that Guitar Hero is pretty good. Lots of people liked Buzz. A Tale in the Desert was a pretty nifty idea, or is that too old to qualify? Lionhead's "The Movies" sounds like a pretty original idea. To be honest, I can't think of a lot of games that were original. What are these original games that everyone talks about? Apart from the really early ones, when there was no choice but to be original, the only times we got new ideas was when we had substantially good new hardware. We saw a brief burst of ideas with hardware capable of doing 3D graphics, and another when it became capable of texture mapping. Most of the history of games development has been incremental.
Why the hell is it so difficult for the americans?
Non-native speakers actually make fewer mistakes. They learn the rules of the language (insofar as English actually has rules), and learn things on a word for word basis. Native English speakers pick it up as they go along, and learn phrases and sentence fragments. Now, most speakers are lazy, so the would've abbreviation is a lot more common than would have. Since the word "of" is pronounced "ov", this confuses many native speakers.
UK copyright law has, and has always had an section for "private study" under the fair dealing exceptions. The copyright office has clarified that private study includes listening to music purely for personal enjoyment. Whether this would allow one to copy an entire song or album is a matter for consideration, but in the past, British courts have been quite permissive over private use and fair dealing. The fact that there's this exception, and no case law on the matter, means that it's quite possible that the people the BPI is not going to sue aren't breaching coyright in the first place.
It's an abbreviation for "Association football", used to distinguish it from the popular alternative version of football invented in Rugby by William Webb Ellis.
What exactly does the COPE act that this was meant to amend allow? All I've heard about it is that it permiots a 2 tiered internet. I didn't realise there was any legal restriction in an ISP charging another organisation to route their packets in the first place.
As soon as private companies got involved, and the internet was opened up for business, it stopped being free. The network owners want to charge as many people as much as possible, so they'll segment the market as much as they can.
This is just the free market in action. It has all the benefits and disadvantages of the rest of the capitalist system.
Where I live, people respect each other because we're civilised and polite to each other. I prefer a society based on mutual respect than one based on fear but I guess it's a matter of personal preference.
Most likely legally. As another poster mentioned, As another comment mentioned, England has a concept of "Stealing by Finding", and I would expect other legal systems do as well. The finder certainly has no claim to it, and it's quite clear who this belongs to. The rightful owner is easy to track. If they genuinely thought it was purchased legally (e.g. they bought it in a pawn shop), they might not get prosecuted for stealing, but they would still have to return it.
Slashdot Mirror
At least there's actual criteria for determinining harmful content, rather than some vague concept of community standards
I suspect this si still unconstitutional. The first amendment doesn't have an age limit as far as I recall although they might have snuck an age clause somewhere in those 45 words.
If it is unconstitutional, then it's likely Jack Thompson knows this, and this is a pice of tactical manouevering from him. The only reason the ESA would have to challenge this is if they want to sell "harmful" games to minors. If they don't challenge it, the law stands. If they don't challenge it, Jack scores some P.R points.
Why should Microsoft have been in such a good position for web based software? It's a completely different chunk of the industry from software sales.
True. The other aspect is that since its networking is so minimal, it's pretty secure until you actually add some extra software to connect to the internet...
Nice straw man you've got there. Burns nicely doesn't it. Unfortunately, your rebuttal is only a rebuttal tyo your own arguments.
So, let me ask you this - Why is it that if your lawn is private property, and a Mall is private property, people feel a perfectly valid right to wander into a mall, and just amble about the place, whereas they don't feel that way about your lawn?
What I am hearing here is "Private property should only be allowed when it doesn't inconvienience me".
Really? What I'm saying is that if you open up your private property to the public, then you have created a public place. Don't like people being in your Mall? Well then, close it. Allow people in by explicit invitation only.
Because it's trespass based on a legal technicality. Not based on on public perception.
Apparently they were. Loitering can be a problem.
That's weaselling out of it. They're not thrown because they're loitering. They're thrown out because they have an objection to the practices of a customer of the Mall.
No, if it's private property then it's private property.
Is there a sign saying no entry? A locked door? Anything to indicate that these people aren't welcome? If you were to strip naked there, would this be acceptable because it's private property? Chances are you could be prosecuted for public indecency. It's both private property and a public place. It is open to all of the public.
Doesn't matter what they think. Private property is private property even if you don't like that fact.
YES IT DOES!!!! This is the entire pooint of my argument. If people in general see it as a public place, then they will sympathise with people who are thrown out of a public place by private goons for excercising freedom of speech.
You have no right to be heard. I'm tired of everything being considered a "right" when it would otherwise be an inconvenience to comply.
No. You're missing the point again. If they make it clear that they are effectively being gagged, then they may well use this to gain public support.
Umm, because it's PRIVATE PROPERTY. Why is this so hard to understand?
So? This still begs the question. Why shouldn't people have freedom of speech on private proprty that's open to the public?
Bottom line: it's still private property even if you really really really don't like that idea. Your house is on a public street, so does that make your house public property because it's in such a public location. I mean, why would private property be on a public street? Inconceivable!
This is a silly argument. The street is public because it is open to the public. My house isn't because it isn't.
Ah, but he knows they can't come, becasue they're expected so they're unexpected. Which means they can come. Except Hawking obviouslyt expects them to know they're expected and therefore unexpected, so he should probably expect this.
If one is on private property and one is asked to leave by the owners or their representatives, one must leave or be subject to arrest for trespass. Nothing unreasonable about that, and I don't know how you can make it seem unreasonable.
These people are causing no problem. The Mall may well be private property, but it is still a public place. People who go there generally don't see it as private property because it's such a public area. They have a legitimate complaint and they're being barred from speaking about it in a location where they may be heard.
Why should people's freedom of speech be barred just because they're on private property?
Don't organize a protest on private property (such as in a mall), security can and almost certainly will ask you to leave
I think they just need to make it appear quite unreasonable when security asks them to leave. While they have every legal right to do so, if they ask people to leave when they're not causing a problem, and simply making a legitimate point, it offends a lot of people's sense of fair play.
Unless Theo can give a decent estimate of how much 'sales' OpenBSD has 'given' them, I doubt the upper brass at Hifn cares about Theo's whinging.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of their customers were BSD users. It's quite a common OS in the sort of application this chip is designed for.
If you don't believe me, we'll, the only reason NVIDIA's Linux support is miles ahead of ATI is due to the demand from Hollywood setups to use high-end-5000%-margin professional cards on Linux, not geeks on Slashdot playing Tuxracer.
PowerVR released a linux driver for the Kyro 2. The only people who would have had any interest in that were the geeks playing TuxRacer.
What makes you think the Linux geek market is so small? A lot of Linux nerds are early adopters, and are quite likely to choose one high end graphics card over another simply because it will run on their Linux partition. Half a million slashdot readers may not be the bulk of their market, but it's probably worth something.
How would this violate US Export Licences
A valid question, but I suspect the company is being a little more careful, and asking if they can be absolutely sure that it doesn't violate US Export licences.
Actually, I think the restriction only applies to code in computer readable formats (i.e. source code and executable binaries). Not documentation, so it seems they're playing extremely safely here.
The cast noticed he was chuckling when he was walked past the "warp core". When asked why, he said...
..."I've only just realised I never needed that chair"
Well, I quite like Singstar, and have been told that Guitar Hero is pretty good. Lots of people liked Buzz. A Tale in the Desert was a pretty nifty idea, or is that too old to qualify? Lionhead's "The Movies" sounds like a pretty original idea. To be honest, I can't think of a lot of games that were original. What are these original games that everyone talks about? Apart from the really early ones, when there was no choice but to be original, the only times we got new ideas was when we had substantially good new hardware. We saw a brief burst of ideas with hardware capable of doing 3D graphics, and another when it became capable of texture mapping. Most of the history of games development has been incremental.
Perhaps RMS should get an electronic copy. I guess he's just not all that technologically literate though.
Why the hell is it so difficult for the americans?
Non-native speakers actually make fewer mistakes. They learn the rules of the language (insofar as English actually has rules), and learn things on a word for word basis. Native English speakers pick it up as they go along, and learn phrases and sentence fragments. Now, most speakers are lazy, so the would've abbreviation is a lot more common than would have. Since the word "of" is pronounced "ov", this confuses many native speakers.
And I hate it too.
UK copyright law has, and has always had an section for "private study" under the fair dealing exceptions. The copyright office has clarified that private study includes listening to music purely for personal enjoyment. Whether this would allow one to copy an entire song or album is a matter for consideration, but in the past, British courts have been quite permissive over private use and fair dealing. The fact that there's this exception, and no case law on the matter, means that it's quite possible that the people the BPI is not going to sue aren't breaching coyright in the first place.
Well, yes, but there's a lot of pollution form French, and a pile of other languages that it's probably more of a creole.
It's an abbreviation for "Association football", used to distinguish it from the popular alternative version of football invented in Rugby by William Webb Ellis.
Is it fair to charge people more for dry-cleaning if they don't own your brand of clothing?
Is it unfair to charge less if they do? Unfair to include dry cleaning vouchers for certain dry cleaner firms with certain brands of suit?
What's the difference?
What exactly does the COPE act that this was meant to amend allow? All I've heard about it is that it permiots a 2 tiered internet. I didn't realise there was any legal restriction in an ISP charging another organisation to route their packets in the first place.
Yeah, because Google, eBay and Amazon certainly don;t have any money for political lobbying
As soon as private companies got involved, and the internet was opened up for business, it stopped being free. The network owners want to charge as many people as much as possible, so they'll segment the market as much as they can.
This is just the free market in action. It has all the benefits and disadvantages of the rest of the capitalist system.
Because there's a limit to what you can do at 100km at suborbital speeds.
Where I live, people respect each other because we're civilised and polite to each other. I prefer a society based on mutual respect than one based on fear but I guess it's a matter of personal preference.
Most likely legally. As another poster mentioned, As another comment mentioned, England has a concept of "Stealing by Finding", and I would expect other legal systems do as well. The finder certainly has no claim to it, and it's quite clear who this belongs to. The rightful owner is easy to track. If they genuinely thought it was purchased legally (e.g. they bought it in a pawn shop), they might not get prosecuted for stealing, but they would still have to return it.