My perspective is, and always has been, that making the analogy that fits best is the best idea when making an analogy. It occurs to me that you're stating that I should alter that perspective to "Make the analogy that fits best, excluding those analogies which The Public has bored itself of through misuse".
I don't care to seek out and memorize the cultural preferences of every known people on the face of the world, much less find a way to abide by all of them (at once, no less!).
If that's your mission in life, enjoy it. If you've decided that your job is to criticize folks whose linguistic practices you find unpleasant, enjoy that too. Please note however, that there is a culture of people that would prefer to not be criticized for being different, even if you find that difference boring. Perhaps you can combine these ideas and alter your perspective, it matters little to me.
Thanks, glad to help inform folks of the nasty scams being run against them. I believe that a Federal amendment doesn't necessarily grant state citizenship, so the second clause may be moot. I could easily be wrong, but I seem to recall some reason which left that entirely up to the states themselves. Could be that whole sovereignity thing that spawned the civil war, I don't know if it still holds-true.
As far as the "Citizen" vs. "citizen" thing goes, I don't remember where that came from, it could be entirely fabricated. I know that the story is that the capitalized version refers to Federal citizenship; the lowercase refers to state. I'm sure googling on "14th amendment second-class citizenship" or something similar would provide great insight, and much misinformation.
By gum, I sure do hope I didn't offend anyone! It would be so utterly un-politically correct to exaggerate a little in making a point.
Perhaps I should stick to referring to the BSA as the BSA, or to a tree as a tree rather than "the splendid umbrella nature provides to shade me on a sunny day". Analogy is obviously always incorrect, it's supposed to be similar - not the same. Oh, and pardon me for exaggerating.
Is poetry dead to your ears?
If you fail to see that the fellow was asking for trouble by requesting a what is essentially a mission statement from a group that behaves along the lines of government-aided racketeers (internationally), perhaps it's well that we don't converse.
By the way, it's well and good that there's a lot of terrible shit going on all over the world, without it, there's no reason to remember why it's important to hold oneself to a higher standard and strive for a better life. It's how the world works, and I imagine it's the same the universe-over - things get bad before they get better.
If the Gestappo comes by asking if you've seen any Jews, do you ask them to explain what Naziism is all about?
Until this IP law is overturned, cower and hide if you're not williong to put your ass on the line to do something about it. In this case, your guy put his ass on the line, it's only natural that he takes what's coming to him. Consider it a form of back-assward martyrdom.
I believe the "Citizen" thing the poster was referring to was the establishing of United States Citizenship via the 14th amendment (as opposed to citizenship of individual states).
As I understand it, the major reason this was done was because many states refused to grant citizenship to freed slaves and other non-whites. There were no laws that said that the states had to, since at the time we had a very different political configuration (the Federal Government was _MUCH_ smaller, and less intrusive), so the Federal government saw an opportunity for a power-grab and created a second-class "Citizen" (National citizen) which technically is not afforded the specific protections of the Constitution that would be afforded to the state citizens - inalienable rights aside, of course.
From that point on, all people who have not specificaly petitioned for, and been granted state citizenship after denouncing their federal citizenship are under the 14th amendment's Citizenship from birth, or the age of 18, I don't recall which.
Anyway, my memory isn't the best, don't take my word for it - go read the 14th amendment.
I'm really sorry if this comes across as rude, I certainly don't mean for it to be, especially because I consider you to be extremely correct.
How is this Insightful?! If people don't know not to run untrusted binaries from untrusted sources, we need a serious wake-up call!
Come on people! This should be as obvious as "never pick up random hitchhikers stumbling in an alley in the middle of downtown Shanghai - especialy if they're impeccably dressed!".
Please take into consideration the following: The DMCA outlaws the trafficking of circumvention devices, though you are allowed to circumvent copy-protection if it's the only way to use the product in the way you're entitled to. If you must circumvent copy protection, and you don't know how to write the tool, you must break the law by engaging a trafficker. You're still screwed.
You're correct, but don't overlook the practicality of the situation: What bearing do things like copyright protection and the DMCA have on the situation? Can you write a tool to ensure your fair-use, or would you have to break the law by acquiring one from a trafficker?
Does clicking "OK" to an EULA actually mean anything legally?
No, perhaps not, but consider this: if you don't consider it binding, you have a cdrom and packaging, but no right to copy the data thereon. Purchasing the product entitled you to the former, but the EULA entitles you to the latter. If you use the product, you're asserting that you are willing to consider the EULA binding, or that you're a criminal: copyrighted material from the disc will be copied on your computer.
The gamble is that EULA's will be ruled enforceable because of the impossibility of ruling that all the computer users who use copyrighted software are infringing on copyright.
This is all about enacting a treaty that will allow us to pursue "cyber-terrorists" into the networks of china, rather than allowing the world to hack a chinese box and have anonymity.
Scare the public into blocking china's net access and see how quickly they allow info-extradition treaties to form.
What I see as the real beauty of nanotechnology is this: if nanotechnology is able to scale-down well enough to allow for generalized molecular manipulation (which is definitely a controversial point), or further than that - generalized atomic m/subatomic manipulation, the rules which we use to govern information will have application to physical reality.
That's a pretty bold claim, let me explain. Let's presume that such molecular/atomic manipulators would be computer-guided, I don't think that this is in dispute. Furthermore, let us assume that such techniques will allow for the production of much more powerful computers, capable of storing and manipulating the vast amounts of data necessary to model physical objects in molecular or atomic detail. Given these points, all that will be needed to convert an idea into a physical manifestation will be software, energy, and raw materials.
Now, given that these things come to pass, we'll face a situation in which script-kiddies kill, DDoS is warfare, and P2P applications redefine the nature of culture (shared knowledge). If software can manipulate the physical dimension, the same rules which govern the Internet and digital technology will apply universally.
The preventative measures we come up with today will set precedent for the measures which will be used to avert disaster in this hypothetical future, it would be wise to treat computers as we would treat citizens when we define new security protocols - we may end up living under them ourselves.
"Unspecified terrorists are considering physical attacks against U.S. financial institutions in the Northeast, particularly banks, as part of their campaign against U.S. financial interests," the FBI said.
Vague? Fear mongering?
No, really - this is currently running on America's favourite tabloid, CNN.
The problem is that the government has to waste several hours tracking down the judge to get the warrant signed.
If this is the problem, rather than working around the warrant, we should be spending money working to streamline the process of finding judges to grant or deny warrants.
Of primary concern is this: A society is composed of individuals who act together for common benefit - by consent. By restricting information, a person is capable of manufacturing that consent by choosing what information to hide, and what information to emphasize. By removing the ability for people to choose whether or not they are willing to comply with society's regulations, we would be removing the requirement of consent to be a member of our society - and the ability to choose not to be.
Belonging to a society is a matter of moral and economic judgements. Societies come with restrictions which enable members to interact in a civilized manner, these restrictions are often moral in nature. It is important that people be allowed to make individual decisions concerning any moral matter, if we have our moral decisions decided for us, an amoral society will be unlikely to be destroyed by revolution, and the democratic process will cease to function in the interest of the citizenship.
I would not be willing to select the people I work and live with - the people I choose as friends solely on an economic basis alone - and I refuse to allow morality to become dictated so that I have no choice in the matter, as all options are the same.
It's a terrible tragedy, but surely you understand that many times that number of people die in drunk-driving related accidents yearly - for that matter, consider how terrible a death starvation is... a slow, terribly painful death - and hundreds of people are dying this very second from that.
Quit with the self-important nonsense, the families of the folks who died in the WTC are not the only people in the world to feel bereaved. Just because they are Americans does not make them more important that the other humans who are currently dying a slower death elsewhere in the world.
Has anyone stopped to ponder why it is that people are so readily stereotyped?
I don't know about you guys, but I am not defined by my job - my job is selected based on some conjunction of the skills I currently hold or wish to develop further. Consequently, the behaviour I manifest when doing my job is not decided in advance for me by the common culture of that job but by my understanding of how to best accomplish the goals that the job entails. Perhaps the distinction is that I don't ask how to do my job, but what my boss expects me to accomplish - then I work out the rest to the best of my abilities.
On that same note, I'm not a white man in the USA, I'm a free individual who happens to be male, caucasian, and living in the US of A. Some people would argue that there's no difference, I merely extend the idea that it's a matter of priorities: what labels do you treasure most, and how does that affect your thinking and behaviour?
...Back to the idea of performing my job without referring to the instruction manual: A common trend in business is to micro-manage through bureaucracy - many positions come with a manual which is intended to help maximize efficiency by ensuring that employees are as disposable as the time it takes to train them. Consider the cost of making your life less difficult by simply following instructions: you can always be instructed to be replaced; much like a VCR, the instructions from one employer are not likely to be applicable to another. You only benefit from the enhanced ease if you do everything you can to stay at one job, if you're layed-off it's a whole new load of training when you're hired elsewhere.
In other words, don't be lazy and avoid stereotypes.
(by the way, I've been working at Franz, Inc. for almost 1 year now. I love it, the whole office is friendly, I learn something new every day, and even though I've been sick for weeks, everybody's supportive and helpful. Here's to hoping we can all find a group of folks as great as they've been to me.)
The primary use of the lines in cable systems at this point is indeed information delivery, whether it be TV signals or data, and there are no open-access laws for info delivery services.
The same is true of telephones and other communications devices. Strictly speaking, it's more than delivery when the data flows in two directions - that's what we call communication. I think it's pretty clear that information delivery is an attempt to recategorize something we already have laws to govern.
Slashdot Mirror
Get some perspective. Jesus.
My perspective is, and always has been, that making the analogy that fits best is the best idea when making an analogy. It occurs to me that you're stating that I should alter that perspective to "Make the analogy that fits best, excluding those analogies which The Public has bored itself of through misuse".
I don't care to seek out and memorize the cultural preferences of every known people on the face of the world, much less find a way to abide by all of them (at once, no less!).
If that's your mission in life, enjoy it. If you've decided that your job is to criticize folks whose linguistic practices you find unpleasant, enjoy that too. Please note however, that there is a culture of people that would prefer to not be criticized for being different, even if you find that difference boring. Perhaps you can combine these ideas and alter your perspective, it matters little to me.
Thanks, glad to help inform folks of the nasty scams being run against them. I believe that a Federal amendment doesn't necessarily grant state citizenship, so the second clause may be moot. I could easily be wrong, but I seem to recall some reason which left that entirely up to the states themselves. Could be that whole sovereignity thing that spawned the civil war, I don't know if it still holds-true.
As far as the "Citizen" vs. "citizen" thing goes, I don't remember where that came from, it could be entirely fabricated. I know that the story is that the capitalized version refers to Federal citizenship; the lowercase refers to state. I'm sure googling on "14th amendment second-class citizenship" or something similar would provide great insight, and much misinformation.
By gum, I sure do hope I didn't offend anyone! It would be so utterly un-politically correct to exaggerate a little in making a point.
Perhaps I should stick to referring to the BSA as the BSA, or to a tree as a tree rather than "the splendid umbrella nature provides to shade me on a sunny day". Analogy is obviously always incorrect, it's supposed to be similar - not the same. Oh, and pardon me for exaggerating.
Is poetry dead to your ears?
If you fail to see that the fellow was asking for trouble by requesting a what is essentially a mission statement from a group that behaves along the lines of government-aided racketeers (internationally), perhaps it's well that we don't converse.
By the way, it's well and good that there's a lot of terrible shit going on all over the world, without it, there's no reason to remember why it's important to hold oneself to a higher standard and strive for a better life. It's how the world works, and I imagine it's the same the universe-over - things get bad before they get better.
If the Gestappo comes by asking if you've seen any Jews, do you ask them to explain what Naziism is all about?
Until this IP law is overturned, cower and hide if you're not williong to put your ass on the line to do something about it. In this case, your guy put his ass on the line, it's only natural that he takes what's coming to him. Consider it a form of back-assward martyrdom.
I believe the "Citizen" thing the poster was referring to was the establishing of United States Citizenship via the 14th amendment (as opposed to citizenship of individual states).
As I understand it, the major reason this was done was because many states refused to grant citizenship to freed slaves and other non-whites. There were no laws that said that the states had to, since at the time we had a very different political configuration (the Federal Government was _MUCH_ smaller, and less intrusive), so the Federal government saw an opportunity for a power-grab and created a second-class "Citizen" (National citizen) which technically is not afforded the specific protections of the Constitution that would be afforded to the state citizens - inalienable rights aside, of course.
From that point on, all people who have not specificaly petitioned for, and been granted state citizenship after denouncing their federal citizenship are under the 14th amendment's Citizenship from birth, or the age of 18, I don't recall which.
Anyway, my memory isn't the best, don't take my word for it - go read the 14th amendment.
I'm really sorry if this comes across as rude, I certainly don't mean for it to be, especially because I consider you to be extremely correct.
How is this Insightful?! If people don't know not to run untrusted binaries from untrusted sources, we need a serious wake-up call!
Come on people! This should be as obvious as "never pick up random hitchhikers stumbling in an alley in the middle of downtown Shanghai - especialy if they're impeccably dressed!".
Where's the funding going to come from?
You're correct, thank you for pointing that out.
Please take into consideration the following: The DMCA outlaws the trafficking of circumvention devices, though you are allowed to circumvent copy-protection if it's the only way to use the product in the way you're entitled to. If you must circumvent copy protection, and you don't know how to write the tool, you must break the law by engaging a trafficker. You're still screwed.
You're correct, but don't overlook the practicality of the situation: What bearing do things like copyright protection and the DMCA have on the situation? Can you write a tool to ensure your fair-use, or would you have to break the law by acquiring one from a trafficker?
I'm a big fan of APT on Debian.
I hear that there's at least one apt rpm-wrapper for rpm-based distros.
Does clicking "OK" to an EULA actually mean anything legally?
No, perhaps not, but consider this: if you don't consider it binding, you have a cdrom and packaging, but no right to copy the data thereon. Purchasing the product entitled you to the former, but the EULA entitles you to the latter. If you use the product, you're asserting that you are willing to consider the EULA binding, or that you're a criminal: copyrighted material from the disc will be copied on your computer.
The gamble is that EULA's will be ruled enforceable because of the impossibility of ruling that all the computer users who use copyrighted software are infringing on copyright.
This is all about enacting a treaty that will allow us to pursue "cyber-terrorists" into the networks of china, rather than allowing the world to hack a chinese box and have anonymity.
Scare the public into blocking china's net access and see how quickly they allow info-extradition treaties to form.
What I see as the real beauty of nanotechnology is this: if nanotechnology is able to scale-down well enough to allow for generalized molecular manipulation (which is definitely a controversial point), or further than that - generalized atomic m/subatomic manipulation, the rules which we use to govern information will have application to physical reality.
That's a pretty bold claim, let me explain. Let's presume that such molecular/atomic manipulators would be computer-guided, I don't think that this is in dispute. Furthermore, let us assume that such techniques will allow for the production of much more powerful computers, capable of storing and manipulating the vast amounts of data necessary to model physical objects in molecular or atomic detail. Given these points, all that will be needed to convert an idea into a physical manifestation will be software, energy, and raw materials.
Now, given that these things come to pass, we'll face a situation in which script-kiddies kill, DDoS is warfare, and P2P applications redefine the nature of culture (shared knowledge). If software can manipulate the physical dimension, the same rules which govern the Internet and digital technology will apply universally.
The preventative measures we come up with today will set precedent for the measures which will be used to avert disaster in this hypothetical future, it would be wise to treat computers as we would treat citizens when we define new security protocols - we may end up living under them ourselves.
In that case, replace cost with earn in my post and it will still reflect my sentiments.
Two days on the stand will cost Bill Gates more money than I will make in a decade if I continue with my current line of work.
Something about that disparity upsets me.
"Unspecified terrorists are considering physical attacks against U.S. financial institutions in the Northeast, particularly banks, as part of their campaign against U.S. financial interests," the FBI said.
Vague? Fear mongering?
No, really - this is currently running on America's favourite tabloid, CNN.
The problem is that the government has to waste several hours tracking down the judge to get the warrant signed.
If this is the problem, rather than working around the warrant, we should be spending money working to streamline the process of finding judges to grant or deny warrants.
Of primary concern is this: A society is composed of individuals who act together for common benefit - by consent. By restricting information, a person is capable of manufacturing that consent by choosing what information to hide, and what information to emphasize. By removing the ability for people to choose whether or not they are willing to comply with society's regulations, we would be removing the requirement of consent to be a member of our society - and the ability to choose not to be.
Belonging to a society is a matter of moral and economic judgements. Societies come with restrictions which enable members to interact in a civilized manner, these restrictions are often moral in nature. It is important that people be allowed to make individual decisions concerning any moral matter, if we have our moral decisions decided for us, an amoral society will be unlikely to be destroyed by revolution, and the democratic process will cease to function in the interest of the citizenship.
I would not be willing to select the people I work and live with - the people I choose as friends solely on an economic basis alone - and I refuse to allow morality to become dictated so that I have no choice in the matter, as all options are the same.
It's a terrible tragedy, but surely you understand that many times that number of people die in drunk-driving related accidents yearly - for that matter, consider how terrible a death starvation is... a slow, terribly painful death - and hundreds of people are dying this very second from that.
Quit with the self-important nonsense, the families of the folks who died in the WTC are not the only people in the world to feel bereaved. Just because they are Americans does not make them more important that the other humans who are currently dying a slower death elsewhere in the world.
Has anyone stopped to ponder why it is that people are so readily stereotyped?
I don't know about you guys, but I am not defined by my job - my job is selected based on some conjunction of the skills I currently hold or wish to develop further. Consequently, the behaviour I manifest when doing my job is not decided in advance for me by the common culture of that job but by my understanding of how to best accomplish the goals that the job entails. Perhaps the distinction is that I don't ask how to do my job, but what my boss expects me to accomplish - then I work out the rest to the best of my abilities.
On that same note, I'm not a white man in the USA, I'm a free individual who happens to be male, caucasian, and living in the US of A. Some people would argue that there's no difference, I merely extend the idea that it's a matter of priorities: what labels do you treasure most, and how does that affect your thinking and behaviour?
...Back to the idea of performing my job without referring to the instruction manual: A common trend in business is to micro-manage through bureaucracy - many positions come with a manual which is intended to help maximize efficiency by ensuring that employees are as disposable as the time it takes to train them. Consider the cost of making your life less difficult by simply following instructions: you can always be instructed to be replaced; much like a VCR, the instructions from one employer are not likely to be applicable to another. You only benefit from the enhanced ease if you do everything you can to stay at one job, if you're layed-off it's a whole new load of training when you're hired elsewhere.
In other words, don't be lazy and avoid stereotypes.
(by the way, I've been working at Franz, Inc. for almost 1 year now. I love it, the whole office is friendly, I learn something new every day, and even though I've been sick for weeks, everybody's supportive and helpful. Here's to hoping we can all find a group of folks as great as they've been to me.)
The COS is NOT a church, it is a pyramid scheme!!
And what, praytell, is the Catholic Church? How many big ornate temples funded by guilt-induced contributions does it take to qualify?
The primary use of the lines in cable systems at this point is indeed information delivery, whether it be TV signals or data, and there are no open-access laws for info delivery services.
The same is true of telephones and other communications devices. Strictly speaking, it's more than delivery when the data flows in two directions - that's what we call communication. I think it's pretty clear that information delivery is an attempt to recategorize something we already have laws to govern.
To protect our liberty, only authorized information will be allowed to be published/spoken/thought.
I'd hate for terrorists to get too much information.
Don't terrorists have a history of not attacking prisoners? If we lock every US civilian up, they'll leave the civilians alone!
One HUGE difference, of course, is that a Janitor is custodian to someone else's property, where the mailserver owner owns the mailserver.
If I want to let random strangers do what they will with my property, it's my business.
If they don't like getting pissed on, they should quit and find less thankless work.
I don't like having to convey bad news, nor be around people who receive it. I do not work at a funeral home. Problem solved.