I dont think you catch what he is saying. There is a difference between the use of profanity as "creative expression" and as surprised expression.
For example, the use of the word "fuck" as an adjective on every other word in a sentance is plain stupid. If you cant think of any other word to more adequately describe what you're talking about then you are a moron. However, saying the same thing because you were caught off guard and as an expression of surprise is entirely different (not that I personally do so myself).
The issue is with people, kids or adults, thinking that just slapping a 4 letter word on as a pointless adjective makes them mature and cool, and that being the extent of their ability to express themselves. Bottom line, if you going to do it, then do it right at least.
Yeah, I misinterpreted in my quick reading and was a little too quick on the trigger.:$
I would like to say though - the significance of swearing varies greatly around the world. Where I live, people really do swear all the time for no particular reason. An example of trying to remember something:
(muttered) Fuck um... what was it called... fuck.
It's a bilingual area, so people quickly recognize that swear words are defined by social groups, and are not universal, and so they do not carry much weight (positively or negatively).
It is also not uncommon to find words which mean something inoffensive in one language and are vulgar in another.
A level of maturity is not found in abstaining from swearing, it's in recognizing that they're only words (in one language) and nothing to become tittilated or offended by. The content of the message, on the other hand...
I'm all in favor of protecting budding young minds from the use of profanity as a substitute for creative expression...
I know I speak for many of us here when I say:
Fuck you.
Keep your intellectual parenting persuits where they belong: in your home. Raise your own fucking kids, and let me raise mine without government interference. We'll let them both compete in 20 years and see who did a better job.
The moment you get your way with bad language censorship, I get my way with religious censorship.
No they aren't; corporations cannot vote and they have an unlimited lifespan. They cannot be jailed.
The corporation is a legal entity to shield shareholders from some liability (both criminally and from civilly), and provide a common entity to direct. Nothing more.
Lobbyists have a greater influence than the voters. Politicians treat getting reelected as a higher priority than their commitment to the voters.
Those two sentences are contradictory.
What's happening is that politicians have realized that they can do both - please the lobbyists (and profit), and please the voters (by lying to, and entertaining them).
This has been a strong belief amongst geeks for a very long time, if you were around the culture (or visiting Slashdot) during the dot com era you know it was worse then. In summary: I can program a computer to do rocket science, therefore I can do rocket science.
While there some some truth to that, I would point out that computers are logic machines. In general, sound computer skill implies sound logic skill. I think we can all agree we need more logic in politics.
With the war on drugs, the war on sex, the war on common sense, and now the war on "IP theft", the risk of raising a child in the US skyrocketing.:(
Young people often fundamentally don't understand the economic incentives, implications and justifications for copyright (regardless of whether or not they are still valid today). Couple that with very low purchasing power, and this new war-on-sharing is a disaster waiting to happen.
Mark my words. A lot of families will suffer terribly because of this.
I'm sure this has been done before, but imagine you set two of these bots on each other (maybe seed them with something interesting) and then converted the output to a screenplay...:p
I've been a Liberal party supporter my entire life. It ended the day the walked out on the omnibus crime bill vote to prevent the government from falling.
I always like Jack Layton but I didn't spend much time reviewing his party, their voting record, or his speeches. After I decided to avoid the Liberals last year (or earlier this year.. can't remember) I started doing some real research. And I have to say, he is the first politician (at that level) I've actually admired. He speaks with a level of candor and immense credibility that is so rare.
He seems to genuinely care about his fellow man, and want to solve conflicts rather than fan the flames.
In short, he's precisely the opposite of this neocon wannabe we currently have running the country. Jack, if you happen to be reading this (and it wouldn't surprise me) you've got my vote.:)
Oh I agree 100%.:) It was thrown in there to satisfy the "crime and punishment" folks who would otherwise chime in and say something like "but, but...he's getting away with a crime!"
I'm surprised how many people are having difficulty with this. The 4th amendment unquestionably prohibits this behavior; the evidence was collected under a false warrant (either knowingly or not; the warrant has been accepted by all to be false) and so the evidence is inadmissable. End of story. Any judge finding otherwise is simply making a judgment in violation of the constitution (not like it would be the first).
This seems to be the very reason the 4th amendment is clearly spelled out: due to a "clerical error" a person was wrongly arrested and searched. We cannot, as a society that purports to be free, allow the proceeds of this violation to benefit the powers that be (especially today).
There will come another day when this "bad guy" will get his in the end, if he so deserves it. Today is not that day.
I'm sorry to godwin the thread, but I heard a quote yesterday that really opened my eyes:
Hitler lives in all of us.
The energy that drives a state towards facism and eventual anarchy lives within each and every one of us and we must be vigilant. Just reading through the comments to this story, it is remarkable how many people are willing to throw away the foundation of a free society to punish one guy. The privilege to detain people without charge, to make "clerical errors" and search people illegally, and to cover up these violations will come from us, not the democrats or the republicans.
The context here is 17-year-olds holding up a beer can and posing for the camera. There is a difference between not drinking and not drinking under-age: only one is illegal. There is also a difference between doing something illegal and doing something illegal while posing for your friend to take a photo: one is arguably a bad idea, but the other is plain stupid.
On the other hand, drinking under the legal age of their jurisdiction suggest that they are able to make decisions outside the context of what others enforce upon them; this is a critical skill and the basis of academic institutions throughout history.
Hypatia was murdered and the library that hosted her burned for her indiscretions (studying and publishing outside the scope of religion). Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's bad or immoral; violating a law does not in-and-of-itself demonstrate a lack of intelligence, ethics or academic worthiness. It's all about context!
If these people think holding up a can of beer at a party is a mark of unintelligence, they can keep their worthless degree. Of what value could their opinion on academic worthiness possibly be if they make such a superficial judgment?
Very well summarized. I've been preparing for an electric conversion myself and I think you nailed it. A multitiered energy storage system is currently the only way to meet the varying power level requirements in a small and cost-efficient package.
1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.
Once one legally acquires software, one is legally allowed to use it as per the terms of copyright laws in most countries. Permission from the vendor is not required.
2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.
This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act. If the vendor seeks this right, they must engage in a legally binding contract with the recipient prior to sale or transmission.
3. Proprietary Rights - again, the source code is not proprietary. The branding logos are, you don't have the right to modify them.
Great. This covers not use or modification, but rather distribution of modified logos. Copyright law does not prohibit modification of private property. It prohibits redistribution without vendor approval. This does not need to be in an EULA, but should be included in a redistribution LICENSE file.
4. Disclaimer of Warranty
Legit.
5. Limitation of Liability
Semi-legit. One cannot disclaim all liability in most countries. If the software contains code which intentionally causes code to launch a DDOS attack, they can and will be held liable, regardless of any "contract" they believe people "signed." But certainly this term is understandable. Still does not need to be in an EULA.
6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws? Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?
7. US Govt End Users - 2 sentences of legal references related to employees of the US Govt using Firefox.
Whatever.
8. Misc, nothing interesting at all. This agreement constitutes the agreement...
Again... waste of time.
I want to stress that I am not suggesting Mozilla doesn't have the right to include this EULA and demand it be included in *nix distros. They do have that right. I think it's silly, but it's their logos and their binary.
However, in my opinion, I side with the Debian leadership (and others who have followed suit) in forking to avoid this nonsense. Lack of annoying and insulting EULAs is a trademark of a good Linux distro. After coming this far, why would we of the free software movement back down on our principles for some silly logos?
I believe distro leaders should choose to fork rather than foist this nonsense on their users.
But there is a usage restriction. If you don't click "I agree," the software exits.
There's nothing wrong with including a WARRANTY or LICENSE file along with it. Asking the user to click some button is offensive. It suggests a contractual agreement where one does not legally exist (YMMV depending on jurisdiction).
I myself find EULAs extremely offensive. I have no problem with a distribution license, particularly in light of the fact it's required by copyright law if one wishes to grant (re)distribution rights. But the idea of a license accompanying a piece of data which governs its use is not something I can, in good conscience, support.
I say fork. EULAs have no place in a Linux distribution. We have come so far as a community. Why back down on our principles now?
if they pursued their enimies with complete disregard for human life, you'd know it.
Nice toughguy talk, but I think what the parent meant was disregard for innocent human life, in-so-far-as the Americans would continue to float their offensive capabilities.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not in-and-of-itself illegal. For instance, some movies cast a character who yells "fire."
What is illegal is endangering the public by suggesting there is an emergency when there is none. Suggesting there is a fire by opening the fire escape and waving everyone towards you is also illegal, and for the same reason.
This particular example has nothing to do with the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I can think of no greater service the press performs than to inform the population of a pending trial/investigation.
The right to investigate the government's actions is reserved to the people. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont think you catch what he is saying. There is a difference between the use of profanity as "creative expression" and as surprised expression.
For example, the use of the word "fuck" as an adjective on every other word in a sentance is plain stupid. If you cant think of any other word to more adequately describe what you're talking about then you are a moron. However, saying the same thing because you were caught off guard and as an expression of surprise is entirely different (not that I personally do so myself).
The issue is with people, kids or adults, thinking that just slapping a 4 letter word on as a pointless adjective makes them mature and cool, and that being the extent of their ability to express themselves. Bottom line, if you going to do it, then do it right at least.
Yeah, I misinterpreted in my quick reading and was a little too quick on the trigger. :$
I would like to say though - the significance of swearing varies greatly around the world. Where I live, people really do swear all the time for no particular reason. An example of trying to remember something:
(muttered) Fuck um ... what was it called... fuck.
It's a bilingual area, so people quickly recognize that swear words are defined by social groups, and are not universal, and so they do not carry much weight (positively or negatively).
It is also not uncommon to find words which mean something inoffensive in one language and are vulgar in another.
A level of maturity is not found in abstaining from swearing, it's in recognizing that they're only words (in one language) and nothing to become tittilated or offended by. The content of the message, on the other hand...
I should have read your comment completely before posting... I think I misinterpreted what you were saying. Sorry about that. :)
But it still stands for the others who feel language police are an acceptable limit on society.
I'm all in favor of protecting budding young minds from the use of profanity as a substitute for creative expression...
I know I speak for many of us here when I say:
Fuck you.
Keep your intellectual parenting persuits where they belong: in your home. Raise your own fucking kids, and let me raise mine without government interference. We'll let them both compete in 20 years and see who did a better job.
The moment you get your way with bad language censorship, I get my way with religious censorship.
Corporations are persons in the legal sense.
No they aren't; corporations cannot vote and they have an unlimited lifespan. They cannot be jailed.
The corporation is a legal entity to shield shareholders from some liability (both criminally and from civilly), and provide a common entity to direct. Nothing more.
Lobbyists have a greater influence than the voters. Politicians treat getting reelected as a higher priority than their commitment to the voters.
Those two sentences are contradictory.
What's happening is that politicians have realized that they can do both - please the lobbyists (and profit), and please the voters (by lying to, and entertaining them).
This has been a strong belief amongst geeks for a very long time, if you were around the culture (or visiting Slashdot) during the dot com era you know it was worse then. In summary: I can program a computer to do rocket science, therefore I can do rocket science.
While there some some truth to that, I would point out that computers are logic machines. In general, sound computer skill implies sound logic skill. I think we can all agree we need more logic in politics.
But what counts as "Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer"?
DRM that stops your OS or drives from working properly?
No, because DRM is installed by corporations, not a person.
With the war on drugs, the war on sex, the war on common sense, and now the war on "IP theft", the risk of raising a child in the US skyrocketing. :(
Young people often fundamentally don't understand the economic incentives, implications and justifications for copyright (regardless of whether or not they are still valid today). Couple that with very low purchasing power, and this new war-on-sharing is a disaster waiting to happen.
Mark my words. A lot of families will suffer terribly because of this.
I'm sure this has been done before, but imagine you set two of these bots on each other (maybe seed them with something interesting) and then converted the output to a screenplay... :p
Oh no.
441 root@badscripts.hollywood.com (~)# ./humourbot --output="Season 6, episode 2"
..they're referring to religious screed, spam, violence, war propaganda and fox "news," right?
Sex? Oh.
I've been a Liberal party supporter my entire life. It ended the day the walked out on the omnibus crime bill vote to prevent the government from falling.
I always like Jack Layton but I didn't spend much time reviewing his party, their voting record, or his speeches. After I decided to avoid the Liberals last year (or earlier this year.. can't remember) I started doing some real research. And I have to say, he is the first politician (at that level) I've actually admired. He speaks with a level of candor and immense credibility that is so rare.
He seems to genuinely care about his fellow man, and want to solve conflicts rather than fan the flames.
In short, he's precisely the opposite of this neocon wannabe we currently have running the country. Jack, if you happen to be reading this (and it wouldn't surprise me) you've got my vote. :)
Oh I agree 100%. :) It was thrown in there to satisfy the "crime and punishment" folks who would otherwise chime in and say something like "but, but...he's getting away with a crime!"
I'm surprised how many people are having difficulty with this. The 4th amendment unquestionably prohibits this behavior; the evidence was collected under a false warrant (either knowingly or not; the warrant has been accepted by all to be false) and so the evidence is inadmissable. End of story. Any judge finding otherwise is simply making a judgment in violation of the constitution (not like it would be the first).
This seems to be the very reason the 4th amendment is clearly spelled out: due to a "clerical error" a person was wrongly arrested and searched. We cannot, as a society that purports to be free, allow the proceeds of this violation to benefit the powers that be (especially today).
There will come another day when this "bad guy" will get his in the end, if he so deserves it. Today is not that day.
I'm sorry to godwin the thread, but I heard a quote yesterday that really opened my eyes:
Hitler lives in all of us.
The energy that drives a state towards facism and eventual anarchy lives within each and every one of us and we must be vigilant. Just reading through the comments to this story, it is remarkable how many people are willing to throw away the foundation of a free society to punish one guy. The privilege to detain people without charge, to make "clerical errors" and search people illegally, and to cover up these violations will come from us, not the democrats or the republicans.
If I make a mistake on my taxes, there are penalties. Some of these may be severe, including jail time.
IANAL, so could someone provide to me the list of penalties or sanctions which could be assigned to the decision makers in this case?
It would make me feel better knowing we're all equal under the eyes of the law.
The context here is 17-year-olds holding up a beer can and posing for the camera. There is a difference between not drinking and not drinking under-age: only one is illegal. There is also a difference between doing something illegal and doing something illegal while posing for your friend to take a photo: one is arguably a bad idea, but the other is plain stupid.
On the other hand, drinking under the legal age of their jurisdiction suggest that they are able to make decisions outside the context of what others enforce upon them; this is a critical skill and the basis of academic institutions throughout history.
Hypatia was murdered and the library that hosted her burned for her indiscretions (studying and publishing outside the scope of religion). Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's bad or immoral; violating a law does not in-and-of-itself demonstrate a lack of intelligence, ethics or academic worthiness. It's all about context!
If these people think holding up a can of beer at a party is a mark of unintelligence, they can keep their worthless degree. Of what value could their opinion on academic worthiness possibly be if they make such a superficial judgment?
Very well summarized. I've been preparing for an electric conversion myself and I think you nailed it. A multitiered energy storage system is currently the only way to meet the varying power level requirements in a small and cost-efficient package.
1. License Grant - This license gives you the right to use the executable provided by Mozilla Corp.
Once one legally acquires software, one is legally allowed to use it as per the terms of copyright laws in most countries. Permission from the vendor is not required.
2. Termination - if you breach this license, S1 is voided.
This is not a right the vendor is legally able to extend under the copyright act. If the vendor seeks this right, they must engage in a legally binding contract with the recipient prior to sale or transmission.
3. Proprietary Rights - again, the source code is not proprietary. The branding logos are, you don't have the right to modify them.
Great. This covers not use or modification, but rather distribution of modified logos. Copyright law does not prohibit modification of private property. It prohibits redistribution without vendor approval. This does not need to be in an EULA, but should be included in a redistribution LICENSE file.
4. Disclaimer of Warranty
Legit. 5. Limitation of Liability
Semi-legit. One cannot disclaim all liability in most countries. If the software contains code which intentionally causes code to launch a DDOS attack, they can and will be held liable, regardless of any "contract" they believe people "signed." But certainly this term is understandable. Still does not need to be in an EULA.
6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws? Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?
7. US Govt End Users - 2 sentences of legal references related to employees of the US Govt using Firefox.
Whatever.
8. Misc, nothing interesting at all. This agreement constitutes the agreement...
Again... waste of time.
I want to stress that I am not suggesting Mozilla doesn't have the right to include this EULA and demand it be included in *nix distros. They do have that right. I think it's silly, but it's their logos and their binary.
However, in my opinion, I side with the Debian leadership (and others who have followed suit) in forking to avoid this nonsense. Lack of annoying and insulting EULAs is a trademark of a good Linux distro. After coming this far, why would we of the free software movement back down on our principles for some silly logos?
I believe distro leaders should choose to fork rather than foist this nonsense on their users.
But there is a usage restriction. If you don't click "I agree," the software exits.
There's nothing wrong with including a WARRANTY or LICENSE file along with it. Asking the user to click some button is offensive. It suggests a contractual agreement where one does not legally exist (YMMV depending on jurisdiction).
I myself find EULAs extremely offensive. I have no problem with a distribution license, particularly in light of the fact it's required by copyright law if one wishes to grant (re)distribution rights. But the idea of a license accompanying a piece of data which governs its use is not something I can, in good conscience, support.
I say fork. EULAs have no place in a Linux distribution. We have come so far as a community. Why back down on our principles now?
if they pursued their enimies with complete disregard for human life, you'd know it.
Nice toughguy talk, but I think what the parent meant was disregard for innocent human life, in-so-far-as the Americans would continue to float their offensive capabilities.
But guess what poor judgment will effect your life.
What, like not using a condom? :)
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not in-and-of-itself illegal. For instance, some movies cast a character who yells "fire."
What is illegal is endangering the public by suggesting there is an emergency when there is none. Suggesting there is a fire by opening the fire escape and waving everyone towards you is also illegal, and for the same reason.
This particular example has nothing to do with the first amendment.
Gag orders themselves are not legal:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I can think of no greater service the press performs than to inform the population of a pending trial/investigation.
The right to investigate the government's actions is reserved to the people. Period.
That was an issue of lacking medical technology and techniques, not a lack of regulation.