We didn't vote for any ID cards or biometrics on passports, since it wasn't put to the vote. The scum in power want more power though, so it was bound to come without a public vote.
You or I might not have, bub, but it was in the Za-NuLabour party manifesto in the last election, so they do technically have a mandate to introduce it in whatever nefarious way they can.
The problem with this country is not just the government, it's the people who have been bought with taxpayers money who vote for them too.
Directly or indirectly an agent of the state, what's the difference. They're paid to broadcast frightening adverts/commercials and threatening mail to you. What kind of setup is that!!??
It's "guilty until proven innocent". Hardly a hallmark of a free society.
I'm British and I refuse to pay the BBC poll-tax even if it means not watching broadcast tv. Nothing worth wasting my time on anyway, and if there is, it'll be available on DVD.
Nobody should be forced to pay for the BBC, whatever the quality of the programmes. It should be subscription based. I hardly watch any BBC, so why should I have to pay for it?
KDE suffers from menu and toolbar bloat. Most of the menu options should probably be tidied away in the configuration dialog. The first thing I do with a KDE app which I use often is remove most of the toolbar buttons and use the Mac OS style menu at the top to clean it up a bit.
Can't these US laws such as the DMCA protect software developers from being held liable for consequences of using their software? Can't programs like Gnutella etc be distributed with such a licence? And won't the licence be legally valid because of the DMCA and whatever laws there are?
Just a thought... IANAL and I don't live in the US so...
A friend of mine recently did a course, as part of his degree, in British software copyright law.
From discussions with him, I got the idea that:
Reverse engineering a piece of software with the intent of making software to interoperate with it is perfectly legal.
Perhaps this could be interpreted to mean that reverse engineering the encryption scheme on DVD players & discs should be legal here because we want to write software to interoperate with it.
(This would probably mean the Microsoft's click-wrap licence for it's proprietary Kerberos extension might not be enforcable here, though this is off topic).
Can anybody back up this or is it complete rubbish?
Go to Britannica now and it'll say it can't handle the load. Check out the Netcraft web server thingummy - Britannica is running on NT & IIS No wonder it's giving this message. Is there an email address to send a message to tell them to upgrade their system to some free Unix?
It occurred to me that there are two main approaches to OS creation today. There is UNIX, which has an extremely logical and consistent design, but which is difficult to learn, and there is Windows which is relatively easy to learn, but internally seems to be a mess of inconsistent overlapping APIs. UNIX in the form of Linux is trying to become easy to learn, and Windows in the form of NT and 2000 is trying to be good at the things UNIX is good at.
Clearly even if Windows was made open source it would be such an incredible job to tidy it up and get it to the same state of logicalness as UNIX that it hardly seems worth it. We need to keep making sure that Linux (and in turn UNIX) is at least as easy to learn as Windows - the installation procedure is just one part of this. Eventually the BSD's will hopefully take on the easy-to-learn parts of Linux too. Choice is always a good thing.
Hmmm... maybe this is slightly offtopic. Never mind.
It's unfortunate that in the US, criminals and television have effectively changed the purpose of the right to carry guns from self defence and protection to "use the thing whenever you get more than slightly agravated with somebody". It seems a lot of people there have taken this as their right.
It's not *just* the availability of firearms in the US, its the culture of a lot of the people that demand the right to have them.
You have to ask where that culture came from, and what is encouraging it among people. Clearly television comes into it here as it glamourises it, and dehumanises the effect of indiscriminate violence. It makes often makes it an impersonal thing, treating humans as target practice. Just as bad (and some may say worse) is when the violence gets personal, and you see people taking pleasure in personal suffering. That is the origin of cruel killing methods, rather than mass indiscriminate killing.
Unfortunately with US films propagating around the world, the situation is going to slowly spread.
Sure, the majority of Americans aren't going to go on killing sprees, but that doesn't make owning guns and making violent films acceptable. It's too difficult and expensive to test people for mental stability before selling them guns.
I hear a lot of people say they watch violent films and own guns, and are never going to kill anybody. OK, but what about those who are because of it?
What kind of society do we live in where one side says its wrong to kill (but often only half heartedly), and another side saying its fun to kill? Which side are a lot of people going to join?
Sure rocks might be more available than guns, but then when did you see a violent movie where all the people hurled rocks at each other rather than used shotguns at close range or automatic weapons?
Rocks just don't have the same image that violent people want.
Slashdot Mirror
We didn't vote for any ID cards or biometrics on passports, since it wasn't put to the vote. The scum in power want more power though, so it was bound to come without a public vote.
You or I might not have, bub, but it was in the Za-NuLabour party manifesto in the last election, so they do technically have a mandate to introduce it in whatever nefarious way they can.
The problem with this country is not just the government, it's the people who have been bought with taxpayers money who vote for them too.
Only the Jews would be worse off
Directly or indirectly an agent of the state, what's the difference. They're paid to broadcast frightening adverts/commercials and threatening mail to you. What kind of setup is that!!??
It's "guilty until proven innocent". Hardly a hallmark of a free society.
I'm British and I refuse to pay the BBC poll-tax even if it means not watching broadcast tv. Nothing worth wasting my time on anyway, and if there is, it'll be available on DVD.
Nobody should be forced to pay for the BBC, whatever the quality of the programmes. It should be subscription based. I hardly watch any BBC, so why should I have to pay for it?
KDE suffers from menu and toolbar bloat. Most of the menu options should probably be tidied away in the configuration dialog. The first thing I do with a KDE app which I use often is remove most of the toolbar buttons and use the Mac OS style menu at the top to clean it up a bit.
It might be the UCITA I'm thinking of.
Can't these US laws such as the DMCA protect software developers from being held liable for consequences of using their software? Can't programs like Gnutella etc be distributed with such a licence? And won't the licence be legally valid because of the DMCA and whatever laws there are?
Just a thought... IANAL and I don't live in the US so...
Having mailed Henzai, they are working on getting the whole system to work in 16Mb
They're stripping down gtk+ and gnome-libs to get it all to work in this.
Disclaimer: IANAL
A friend of mine recently did a course, as part of his degree, in British software copyright law.
From discussions with him, I got the idea that:
Reverse engineering a piece of software with the intent of making software to interoperate with it is perfectly legal.
Perhaps this could be interpreted to mean that reverse engineering the encryption scheme on DVD players & discs should be legal here because we want to write software to interoperate with it.
(This would probably mean the Microsoft's click-wrap licence for it's proprietary Kerberos extension might not be enforcable here, though this is off topic).
Can anybody back up this or is it complete rubbish?
Peter Liniker.
Go to Britannica now and it'll say it can't handle the load. Check out the Netcraft web server thingummy - Britannica is running on NT & IIS No wonder it's giving this message. Is there an email address to send a message to tell them to upgrade their system to some free Unix?
It occurred to me that there are two main approaches to OS creation today. There is UNIX, which has an extremely logical and consistent design, but which is difficult to learn, and there is Windows which is relatively easy to learn, but internally seems to be a mess of inconsistent overlapping APIs. UNIX in the form of Linux is trying to become easy to learn, and Windows in the form of NT and 2000 is trying to be good at the things UNIX is good at.
Clearly even if Windows was made open source it would be such an incredible job to tidy it up and get it to the same state of logicalness as UNIX that it hardly seems worth it. We need to keep making sure that Linux (and in turn UNIX) is at least as easy to learn as Windows - the installation procedure is just one part of this. Eventually the BSD's will hopefully take on the easy-to-learn parts of Linux too. Choice is always a good thing.
Hmmm... maybe this is slightly offtopic. Never mind.
It's unfortunate that in the US, criminals and television have effectively changed the purpose of the right to carry guns from self defence and protection to "use the thing whenever you get more than slightly agravated with somebody". It seems a lot of people there have taken this as their right.
It's not *just* the availability of firearms in the US, its the culture of a lot of the people that demand the right to have them.
You have to ask where that culture came from, and what is encouraging it among people. Clearly television comes into it here as it glamourises it, and dehumanises the effect of indiscriminate violence. It makes often makes it an impersonal thing, treating humans as target practice. Just as bad (and some may say worse) is when the violence gets personal, and you see people taking pleasure in personal suffering. That is the origin of cruel killing methods, rather than mass indiscriminate killing.
Unfortunately with US films propagating around the world, the situation is going to slowly spread.
Sure, the majority of Americans aren't going to go on killing sprees, but that doesn't make owning guns and making violent films acceptable. It's too difficult and expensive to test people for mental stability before selling them guns.
I hear a lot of people say they watch violent films and own guns, and are never going to kill anybody. OK, but what about those who are because of it?
What kind of society do we live in where one side says its wrong to kill (but often only half heartedly), and another side saying its fun to kill? Which side are a lot of people going to join?
Sure rocks might be more available than guns, but then when did you see a violent movie where all the people hurled rocks at each other rather than used shotguns at close range or automatic weapons?
Rocks just don't have the same image that violent people want.
Just an aside - why is Bill's Borg face used in /. such a friendly looking face? He's got a friendly smile on his face.
hmmm