Interesting article in today's Salon.com pointing out Bush's hypocracy:
When then-candidate George W. Bush answered questions during the presidential campaign about whether he had ever used illegal drugs, he refused to give a yes or no answer, claiming that his past was irrelevant. "I am asking people to judge me for who I am today," he said in a September 1999 interview. "I hope it doesn't cost me the election. I hope people understand."
That nonanswer was good enough to get Bush into the White House, but it wouldn't be good enough to get him a student loan under his administration's higher education policy. On Tuesday, the Department of Education announced that it would enforce a law that would deny financial aid to students who answer "yes" -- or refuse to answer at all -- to one simple question: "Have you ever been convicted of selling or possessing drugs?"
Which costs more, the drugs themselves, or the war against them? Are the social costs of (illegal) drug use so high that we need to spend billions of dollars a year trying to eradicate them? Does all the effort really do anything more than drive up the eventual price and increase the amount of violence associated with their distribution? Oh, and why did it take a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?
The person who owns the box would be no more responsible for illegal content passing through than uunet. The server that was holding the content is not an isp, and would not be liable for removing it. Freenet is just the conduit.
Of course C++ is more OO than C. It is the bastard son of C and OO!:) Seriously though, there is no *functionality* that can be done in an OO language that cannot be done in a structured language. As a matter of fact, many C++ compilers really just construct C code out of the C++ and compile that.
If *you* don't want *me* using *your* property in any way *I* want, *you* shouldn't sell it to *me* in the first place. Once you have sold it (or given it away), you have no say over its use.
Just because you aren't making mortgage repayments and spending money on gas doesn't mean that no one else is.
Who isn't making mortgage payments? I just happen to be lucky in that the thing I am compelled to do (programming) can make me a very good living at the moment. If I couldn't pay the bills doing it, I would do it anyway, just not as much. The *vast* majority of artists never make any money at it.
Hmm. It would be *very* cool to be able to listen to 128k shoutcast streams from my car stereo. Who needs a car cd player when I can stream myself every single cd I own!
Real artists (like real programmers) will create art regardless of the amount of money they make. The argument that nobody would create without a profit margin is laughable.
But he did sell it to me for the $500. It is irrelevant to me how many other people he sells it to. I have never signed a contract for software in my life, and am not bound by the silly licenses they see fit to stick in their packages. Music cds don't even try and do that, so they have even less claim to some sort of 'license'.
The definition of a bad law is one that is ignored by the majority of people. Copyright is quickly falling into this category.
Just like with any other property, the creator has no control over what I do with something once it has been sold to me. If I turn around and give it to someone who he wouldn't have wanted to have it, well that's his tough luck. As I'm not in the business of selling my conversations, your analogy is pretty silly.
The issue is that I never signed any agreement with anyone *not* to copy anything. You cannot assume that when I buy a cd there is some sort of implied agreement between me and the producer of the cd. There wasn't. If the producer doesn't want me making copies, he shouldn't sell it to me in the first place.
You can't steal something if the owner of the thing can't tell if it's been stolen. If the artist didn't want his works 'out in the public', he should never have released them.
I always thought that 'fact' was along the lines of the mathematical 'true'. It doesn't matter who is doing the measuring, a fact is something that is consistent across all tests.
He wrote an article about killing government officials
As the recent 'abortion hit list' case shows, he is perfectly within his first amendment rights unless he is threatening specific harm against specific people.
He wrote a series of letters to federal agents making unspecified threats
If he were making actual threats, they might have a case against him. He didn't, and they don't.
He admits to pouring a noxious chemical of some kind on the doormat of a federal agency
So, they are charging him with littering?
He attempted to obtain materials to make sarin gas
No, he once told someone that he had the capability to make sarin gas. Big deal, anyone who knows a little chemistry could do the same. He has never been charged with anything related to chemical weapons.
He was subsequently charged and plea bargained
The only thing he was charged with and plea bargained had to do with the IRS, not threatening anyone or producing chemical weapons.
After his release he compiled a list of government officials home addresses, and visited their houses to conduct surveilance
There is nothing illegal about compiling lists of information about government officials, and he did not conduct surveilance of them. The government is prosecuting him primarily because of his political beliefs. They give free speech lip service up to the point that it might actually pose a threat to the control they exert over everyone.
Just sick! So now the government wants to keep us from publicizing any information about who they are? How can this even be vaguely constitutional? The dude didn't threaten anyone - even the government admits as much. They are going after him because they don't like his particular brand of freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting article in today's Salon.com pointing out Bush's hypocracy:
When then-candidate George W. Bush answered questions during the presidential campaign about whether he had ever used illegal drugs, he refused to give a yes or no answer, claiming that his past was irrelevant. "I am asking people to judge me for who I am today," he said in a September 1999 interview. "I hope it doesn't cost me the election. I hope people understand." That nonanswer was good enough to get Bush into the White House, but it wouldn't be good enough to get him a student loan under his administration's higher education policy. On Tuesday, the Department of Education announced that it would enforce a law that would deny financial aid to students who answer "yes" -- or refuse to answer at all -- to one simple question: "Have you ever been convicted of selling or possessing drugs?"
The "Drug War" is a creature of the Democratic Party, and always was, so let's skip the propaganda for once.
Umm, Nixon is the one who started the 'drug war', and no president since has done a damn thing to stop it.
Which costs more, the drugs themselves, or the war against them? Are the social costs of (illegal) drug use so high that we need to spend billions of dollars a year trying to eradicate them? Does all the effort really do anything more than drive up the eventual price and increase the amount of violence associated with their distribution? Oh, and why did it take a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?
The person who owns the box would be no more responsible for illegal content passing through than uunet. The server that was holding the content is not an isp, and would not be liable for removing it. Freenet is just the conduit.
Of course C++ is more OO than C. It is the bastard son of C and OO! :) Seriously though, there is no *functionality* that can be done in an OO language that cannot be done in a structured language. As a matter of fact, many C++ compilers really just construct C code out of the C++ and compile that.
That would be true if I had agreed to any conditions against copying the material.
Too bad I didn't, isn't it?
The only way this would ever be accepted is if there were no government at all...
If *you* don't want *me* using *your* property in any way *I* want, *you* shouldn't sell it to *me* in the first place. Once you have sold it (or given it away), you have no say over its use.
Victimless street crime? Auto theft certainly has a victim...
Hmm. It would be *very* cool to be able to listen to 128k shoutcast streams from my car stereo. Who needs a car cd player when I can stream myself every single cd I own!
Real artists (like real programmers) will create art regardless of the amount of money they make. The argument that nobody would create without a profit margin is laughable.
But he did sell it to me for the $500. It is irrelevant to me how many other people he sells it to. I have never signed a contract for software in my life, and am not bound by the silly licenses they see fit to stick in their packages. Music cds don't even try and do that, so they have even less claim to some sort of 'license'.
The definition of a bad law is one that is ignored by the majority of people. Copyright is quickly falling into this category.
Just like with any other property, the creator has no control over what I do with something once it has been sold to me. If I turn around and give it to someone who he wouldn't have wanted to have it, well that's his tough luck. As I'm not in the business of selling my conversations, your analogy is pretty silly.
The issue is that I never signed any agreement with anyone *not* to copy anything. You cannot assume that when I buy a cd there is some sort of implied agreement between me and the producer of the cd. There wasn't. If the producer doesn't want me making copies, he shouldn't sell it to me in the first place.
You can't steal something if the owner of the thing can't tell if it's been stolen. If the artist didn't want his works 'out in the public', he should never have released them.
How about if someone comes along with a star trek replicator and makes an exact copy of your silly rock? They haven't stolen anything.
'Rights' may not be absolute, but 'facts' are. If something is a fact, it is true anywhere. If it is not true, it was not a fact. Simple, eh?
I always thought that 'fact' was along the lines of the mathematical 'true'. It doesn't matter who is doing the measuring, a fact is something that is consistent across all tests.
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. :P
If a server is slashdotted, and nobody is able to access it's pages, does it make a frying sound?
Just sick! So now the government wants to keep us from publicizing any information about who they are? How can this even be vaguely constitutional? The dude didn't threaten anyone - even the government admits as much. They are going after him because they don't like his particular brand of freedom of speech.