What is your point? The usurpation of rights in the US by the federal government has no bearing on the legitimacy of the aforementioned "Canadian Charter". First of all slander is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States deals explicitly with the relationship the government has with the people. That relationship being defined by granting the government explicit powers.
The Canadian charter began with the hedge I quoted previously. It continues on with its feel good socialist agenda and then towards the end makes a half-hearted attempt to claim this litany of rights is not an exhaustive one. Well, if the list is not exhaustive...WHY MAKE IT. What is the point of this Charter. If a government is organized such that its powers are explicitly stated, the rights of citizen units need not be emblazoned in some happy pappy charter. This was a chief argument against the Bill of Rights by the way.
No, the real purpose of such a document is an Orwellian attempt to make folks think they are being given these rights. That they are a gift from the benevolent ones. The result being that what was once a right becomes, in the minds of the people, a privelage. Additionally while citizens are busy arguing over new law and its relationship to the Charter, other laws which destroy non-enumerated rights are put in to place with nary a whimper.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Sorry the clause in bold above negates the entire document. Rights by definition may not be subject to any law. They exist through providence, divine or not, and therefore are not subject to the whims of a filthy democracy. This is why Canadians have "hate speach" laws in place. Thanks for playing "Who Wants to be a Freeman". Try again.
It's not actually a space shuttle anyway. It's just a test model. That is why it looks so beat up.
It looks like the guy is trying to sell it to some type of museum, or maybe a corporation that wants something in their lobby? I agree though, it is not very aesthetically pleasing and it seems that some sort of space buff would be the most likely candidate for purchase. So, I'll guess we will find out if their are lots of these types with 1/2 million to blow on such a thing.
this might well be cheeper for people like me who read many books only once..
Most books are already available for free at the library, or if not there, on the cheap at a used bookstore. How can the pay per read scheme be superior for the fiscally challenged? If money was an issue, and you read so much, you ought to know this.
You can get the infomation the same way the rest of us did, buy buying the text. This
makes little sense for any reference text, and publishers know that.
*Laugh* Alright. I'll just sit back and assure myself that publishers will be reasonable. I think not. If throwing a hissy fit now means I will be able to buy books in the future then I will happily do so.
Consumers will exercise they're power as they always do, but they do not need you fear-mongering and missinformation to do it.
Blah. Blah. No fear-mongering and missinformation here my young friend. I simply have the forsight to see where these types of things are heading.
Are we so against people attempting to move forward and offer information in a new format?
Forward implies progress.
Is it wrong just because the publisher might make some money off of it?
Nope. Nothing wrong with making money. The goal of "renting" books, however, is to extract exorbitant fees from those that need the books. In other words University Students will only have a short, predefined temporal window in which to absorb the information contained within the required texts. Don't expect the prices of said books to be lower either.
I really don't like this idea and would certainly encourage consumers to cause enough of an outrage to prevent such business plans from coming to fruition. Just consumers exercising their power. Nothing wrong with that.
Not really. The child online protection act, or whatever it was called was struck down. The Dems. were drooling they wanted that one so bad, so were the Repubs. Don't forget the Feinstein and some of the other bigtime enemies of freedom from California and New Jersey etc. are all Democrats. Don't be lulled in by the mass media telling you democrats respect the 1st amendment, they don't.
There are plenty of border towns in Canada and Mexico that would attract US programmers and would be safe for foriegn programmers.
Sorry, forgot to point this out the first time. Mexico and Canada have stupid gun laws, this would mean lots of folks who enjoy the shoot would not show up. This thins the pool of quality people even further.
The judiciary was hardly in the hands of the Republicans so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Can't locate a list of who supported the DMCA in the House and Senate (why isn't this on the front page of eff.org BTW).
So China and Russia's acts are good excuse for bad laws in the US. Great logic.
Pay attention d00d, not what I said. Merely pointing out that it is ridiculous to pretend that this conference could take place in its current form in other countries unfettered. The DMCA is on its face unconstitutional and painful to those in the security business. Doesn't mean other countries are automatically less abusive.
DefCON has become a flabby media whore event where most of the audience are wannabe script kiddies.
Yep. That is not going to change, no matter where the event is held. Of course I am well aware that conferences are held outside of the U.S. How does Anguilla or where ever feel about strippers, porn and public drunkenness again? Yeah, that's what I thought. No, Vegas is a good place for DefCON the DMCA is just horrible law. DefCON is a big party, and Vegas is used to dealing with that crap. Aren't very many other places that will not only put up with the hijinks, but, provide the oppertunity for same.
The next Defcon conference should be outside the US... and other conferences should think twice before having a US based
Not an uninteresting idea, but, don't hold your breath. The main point of the conference is to make money after all. Less money will be made outside of the U.S. Less folks will go, it will be more expensive. Only stodgy "computer professionals" will show up. It might be kind of nice to weed out the script kiddies though.
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA. Strange that these republicans say they want to "open markets", then pass laws to protect wealthy capitalists instead.
This all happened in a hugely Democratic administration. The powerful are protecting themselves. Democrats are just too busy killing interns at the moment to take bribes. Both parties are culpable here.
I would like to know where you think conferences should be held. The only reason this arrest is a big deal is because it happened here. There would be dozens of arrests anywhere else in the world. If you want to boycott the Olymics start with China, your Russian friend would already be dead had he been arrested there.
Neato. So companies should prosecute users for using unaproved backgrounds, or screensavers as well. What if a user sets their screensaver to 3d pipes instead of blank? Tell me is this a felony or just a misdaemenor? How do we calculate $$/CPU cycles again? Ohh don't forget time on the graphics card. And lets not just have companies fire people they don't like, lets make it possible to prosecute every former employee for something as nebulous as "stealing computer time", that way they can be blackmailed long after they leave the employer.
Making something that has no lawful purpose, regardless of intent, and acting with little or no descretion in its distribution, could easily be considered facilitation at the very least.
Thoughtcrime I think it's called. Both mens rea and actus reus need be present for a crime to exist. Intimidating developers into only releasing their wares amongst close associates will do nothing to stem the tide of incompetent system administrators and the goons that hire them.
The law can never be completely objective because humans have intent, and intent is a subjective thing.
You were on the right track and then missed it a little bit I think. Intent is, or should be, only an issue if a crime has been committed. Writing these tools should not in itself be a crime. Only using the tools illegaly should be a crime.
Ideally intent of the creator simply should not be an issue. To use your gun anology it doesn't matter that a gun is designed only to kill. It only matters if someone uses it to unjustifiably do so.
I've been looking at headphones and was considering the grados. Did you look at these at all? It's my understanding that you need a headphone amp to really get the Senns to sound their best.
Aw c'mon, this is a bit simplistic isn't it? Microsoft has the ability to be infinately more invasive than Linux, or FreeBSD. As has been shown time and again they can afford to buy out universities, high schools, businesses, ISPs, etc. They make them offers "they can't refuse" and this indirectly inflicts these products on the end user.
I know. I know. We don't have to go to school, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, go to the grocery store, or use the Internet, but then thats not much of a choice is it. When a company is this invasive and creates as many problems as Microsoft does than it is perfectly legitamate to lambast them.
This is the one flaw with so many libertarians. I don't think they have truly been faced with the decisions required for their "free market utopia" to exist. I say this as a libertarin by the way.
There needs to be a way to deal with companies such as Microsoft and I am very open to non-governmental alternatives. Because as the Katz article basically pointed out, a boycott ain't gonna work this time.
Aw c'mon, this is a bit simplistic isn't it? Microsoft has the ability to be infinately more invasive than Linux, or FreeBSD. As has been shown time and again they can afford to buy out universities, high schools, businesses, ISPs, etc. They make them offers "they can't refuse" and this indirectly inflicts these products on the end user.
I know. I know. We don't have to go to school, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, go to the grocery store, or use the Internet, but then thats not much of a choice is it. When a company is this invasive and creates as many problems as Microsoft does than it is perfectly legitamate to lambast them.
This is the one flaw with so many libertarians. I don't think they have truly been faced with the decisions required for their "free market utopia" to exist. I say this as a libertarin by the way.
There needs to be a way to deal with companies such as Microsoft and I am very open to non-governmental alternatives. Because as the Katz article basically pointed out, a boycott ain't gonna work this time.
You and the point must be in different time zones so I will try and clear things up.
It doesn't matter that Microsoft was legally correct. We are not discussing contract law here. This is what is known as *funny*. It is funny for the following reasons.
According to the LUG folks, more people were interested in the Linux displays than the MS displays.
People from the LUG were passing out free copies of GNU/Linux software. They were doing so right in front of MS type propoganda.
People were taking the software and were interested.
This bothered MS enough to have to run and whine to the building managers.
MS looks like a bunch of cry babies.
See it is funny. Look at it like someone screwing with MS, and suceeding. The fact that MS is legally correct is wholly inconsequential.
Yeah, he stood up on his chopping board. So what. He wasn't cooking on it anymore. All of the comments characterizing this as some abhorent behavior have their roots in Morimoto's comments about worshiping knives and cutting boards. Well, guess what, most americans don't worship their cutting boards. Some of us may have antiques or heirlooms we don't want to soil, but, stepping on some disposable piece of crap is not unthinkable. So I wish Slashdotters would quit pretending that they would have even noticed this had Morimoto not pointed it out.
Secondly, yes Flay was cocky so are most of the other chefs on the show. Don't pretend otherwise. That is the point of the show, to get people worked up. If Morimoto was so offended he could have chosen not to do another show. But his (Morimotos "your are not a chef") comments were part of the whole show.
Having said that yes B.F. comes across as a prick.
For those who have the Sci-Fi channel The Invisible Man is a fantastic show. It is proof positive that a balance can be found between talking down to the audience and explaining things in a realistic manner. If you aren't a science nazi IM explains the things that happen in a somewhat believable and intelligent manner. I cannot recommend this show enough.
I wish Diane Feinstein would have the gumption to speak out this blatant waste of resources that will at best produce an absurd (and freedom-crushing) precedent.
Well, I'm not a California resident, but, it is my understanding that Feinstein is so secure in hir incumbency that she refuses to debate during election season. Californians need to vote her sorry arse out of office.
Rude? Would you care to elaborate? I am very curious what they said. Especially Swinestein.
Re:Great Movie, maybe not for Americans
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
Being Australian there is alot of culture-centric jokes and puns, which I
think might be lost while travelling to the USA.
What like:
"That's not a knife, this is a knife"
I haven't seen this movie, but, I would like to take this oppertunity to say your continued efforts to level out the Paul Hogan deficit will not be met with kindness in this part of the world. This makes the Chinese Spy Plane fiasco pale in comparison.
Cease and decist all Paul Hogan exports or face the consequences. You have been warned.
A bit thick aren't we? Expecting to be seen is not an analogue of expecting, or accepting having ones action recorded and archived in perpetuity.
Advertising a message board as anonymous gives the uninitiated a sense of insulation which is not only unwarranted, but, completely false. These troubles are born of ignorance.
This applies to cameras in public in that there is a reasonable expectation that in public my actions are not under scrutiny, that is one cavorts oneself differently in a public restroom than in the middle of the street. Cameras in public inculcate an unnatural sense of unease in much of the populace. Some of us wish to not be treated as children. It is no ones business as to my comings and goings without a proper court order. If I have done nothing wrong, then I should have no expectation that my actions are being monitored.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your point? The usurpation of rights in the US by the federal government has no bearing on the legitimacy of the aforementioned "Canadian Charter". First of all slander is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States deals explicitly with the relationship the government has with the people. That relationship being defined by granting the government explicit powers.
The Canadian charter began with the hedge I quoted previously. It continues on with its feel good socialist agenda and then towards the end makes a half-hearted attempt to claim this litany of rights is not an exhaustive one. Well, if the list is not exhaustive...WHY MAKE IT. What is the point of this Charter. If a government is organized such that its powers are explicitly stated, the rights of citizen units need not be emblazoned in some happy pappy charter. This was a chief argument against the Bill of Rights by the way.
No, the real purpose of such a document is an Orwellian attempt to make folks think they are being given these rights. That they are a gift from the benevolent ones. The result being that what was once a right becomes, in the minds of the people, a privelage. Additionally while citizens are busy arguing over new law and its relationship to the Charter, other laws which destroy non-enumerated rights are put in to place with nary a whimper.
A right that is granted is not a right at all.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Sorry the clause in bold above negates the entire document. Rights by definition may not be subject to any law. They exist through providence, divine or not, and therefore are not subject to the whims of a filthy democracy. This is why Canadians have "hate speach" laws in place. Thanks for playing "Who Wants to be a Freeman". Try again.
It's not actually a space shuttle anyway. It's just a test model. That is why it looks so beat up.
It looks like the guy is trying to sell it to some type of museum, or maybe a corporation that wants something in their lobby? I agree though, it is not very aesthetically pleasing and it seems that some sort of space buff would be the most likely candidate for purchase. So, I'll guess we will find out if their are lots of these types with 1/2 million to blow on such a thing.
this might well be cheeper for people like me who read many books only once..
Most books are already available for free at the library, or if not there, on the cheap at a used bookstore. How can the pay per read scheme be superior for the fiscally challenged? If money was an issue, and you read so much, you ought to know this.
You can get the infomation the same way the rest of us did, buy buying the text. This makes little sense for any reference text, and publishers know that.
*Laugh* Alright. I'll just sit back and assure myself that publishers will be reasonable. I think not. If throwing a hissy fit now means I will be able to buy books in the future then I will happily do so.
Consumers will exercise they're power as they always do, but they do not need you fear-mongering and missinformation to do it.
Blah. Blah. No fear-mongering and missinformation here my young friend. I simply have the forsight to see where these types of things are heading.
Why ignore it?
We, shouldn't
Are we so against people attempting to move forward and offer information in a new format?
Forward implies progress.
Is it wrong just because the publisher might make some money off of it?
Nope. Nothing wrong with making money. The goal of "renting" books, however, is to extract exorbitant fees from those that need the books. In other words University Students will only have a short, predefined temporal window in which to absorb the information contained within the required texts. Don't expect the prices of said books to be lower either.
I really don't like this idea and would certainly encourage consumers to cause enough of an outrage to prevent such business plans from coming to fruition. Just consumers exercising their power. Nothing wrong with that.
Not really. The child online protection act, or whatever it was called was struck down. The Dems. were drooling they wanted that one so bad, so were the Repubs. Don't forget the Feinstein and some of the other bigtime enemies of freedom from California and New Jersey etc. are all Democrats. Don't be lulled in by the mass media telling you democrats respect the 1st amendment, they don't.
There are plenty of border towns in Canada and Mexico that would attract US programmers and would be safe for foriegn programmers.
Sorry, forgot to point this out the first time. Mexico and Canada have stupid gun laws, this would mean lots of folks who enjoy the shoot would not show up. This thins the pool of quality people even further.
The judiciary was hardly in the hands of the Republicans so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Can't locate a list of who supported the DMCA in the House and Senate (why isn't this on the front page of eff.org BTW).
So China and Russia's acts are good excuse for bad laws in the US. Great logic.
Pay attention d00d, not what I said. Merely pointing out that it is ridiculous to pretend that this conference could take place in its current form in other countries unfettered. The DMCA is on its face unconstitutional and painful to those in the security business. Doesn't mean other countries are automatically less abusive.
DefCON has become a flabby media whore event where most of the audience are wannabe script kiddies.
Yep. That is not going to change, no matter where the event is held. Of course I am well aware that conferences are held outside of the U.S. How does Anguilla or where ever feel about strippers, porn and public drunkenness again? Yeah, that's what I thought. No, Vegas is a good place for DefCON the DMCA is just horrible law. DefCON is a big party, and Vegas is used to dealing with that crap. Aren't very many other places that will not only put up with the hijinks, but, provide the oppertunity for same.
The next Defcon conference should be outside the US... and other conferences should think twice before having a US based
Not an uninteresting idea, but, don't hold your breath. The main point of the conference is to make money after all. Less money will be made outside of the U.S. Less folks will go, it will be more expensive. Only stodgy "computer professionals" will show up. It might be kind of nice to weed out the script kiddies though.
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA. Strange that these republicans say they want to "open markets", then pass laws to protect wealthy capitalists instead.
This all happened in a hugely Democratic administration. The powerful are protecting themselves. Democrats are just too busy killing interns at the moment to take bribes. Both parties are culpable here.
I would like to know where you think conferences should be held. The only reason this arrest is a big deal is because it happened here. There would be dozens of arrests anywhere else in the world. If you want to boycott the Olymics start with China, your Russian friend would already be dead had he been arrested there.
Neato. So companies should prosecute users for using unaproved backgrounds, or screensavers as well. What if a user sets their screensaver to 3d pipes instead of blank? Tell me is this a felony or just a misdaemenor? How do we calculate $$/CPU cycles again? Ohh don't forget time on the graphics card. And lets not just have companies fire people they don't like, lets make it possible to prosecute every former employee for something as nebulous as "stealing computer time", that way they can be blackmailed long after they leave the employer.
Making something that has no lawful purpose, regardless of intent, and acting with little or no descretion in its distribution, could easily be considered facilitation at the very least.
Thoughtcrime I think it's called. Both mens rea and actus reus need be present for a crime to exist. Intimidating developers into only releasing their wares amongst close associates will do nothing to stem the tide of incompetent system administrators and the goons that hire them.
The law can never be completely objective because humans have intent, and intent is a subjective thing.
You were on the right track and then missed it a little bit I think. Intent is, or should be, only an issue if a crime has been committed. Writing these tools should not in itself be a crime. Only using the tools illegaly should be a crime.
Ideally intent of the creator simply should not be an issue. To use your gun anology it doesn't matter that a gun is designed only to kill. It only matters if someone uses it to unjustifiably do so.
Yeah, whatever do the math. A limit that lasts for hundreds of years is fine by me.
I've been looking at headphones and was considering the grados. Did you look at these at all? It's my understanding that you need a headphone amp to really get the Senns to sound their best.
Aw c'mon, this is a bit simplistic isn't it? Microsoft has the ability to be infinately more invasive than Linux, or FreeBSD. As has been shown time and again they can afford to buy out universities, high schools, businesses, ISPs, etc. They make them offers "they can't refuse" and this indirectly inflicts these products on the end user.
I know. I know. We don't have to go to school, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, go to the grocery store, or use the Internet, but then thats not much of a choice is it. When a company is this invasive and creates as many problems as Microsoft does than it is perfectly legitamate to lambast them.
This is the one flaw with so many libertarians. I don't think they have truly been faced with the decisions required for their "free market utopia" to exist. I say this as a libertarin by the way.
There needs to be a way to deal with companies such as Microsoft and I am very open to non-governmental alternatives. Because as the Katz article basically pointed out, a boycott ain't gonna work this time.
Aw c'mon, this is a bit simplistic isn't it? Microsoft has the ability to be infinately more invasive than Linux, or FreeBSD. As has been shown time and again they can afford to buy out universities, high schools, businesses, ISPs, etc. They make them offers "they can't refuse" and this indirectly inflicts these products on the end user.
I know. I know. We don't have to go to school, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, go to the grocery store, or use the Internet, but then thats not much of a choice is it. When a company is this invasive and creates as many problems as Microsoft does than it is perfectly legitamate to lambast them.
This is the one flaw with so many libertarians. I don't think they have truly been faced with the decisions required for their "free market utopia" to exist. I say this as a libertarin by the way.
There needs to be a way to deal with companies such as Microsoft and I am very open to non-governmental alternatives. Because as the Katz article basically pointed out, a boycott ain't gonna work this time.
He should just argue them down to a booting.
Don't forget disparaging the boot is a bootable offense!
It doesn't matter that Microsoft was legally correct. We are not discussing contract law here. This is what is known as *funny*. It is funny for the following reasons.
- According to the LUG folks, more people were interested in the Linux displays than the MS displays.
- People from the LUG were passing out free copies of GNU/Linux software. They were doing so right in front of MS type propoganda.
- People were taking the software and were interested.
- This bothered MS enough to have to run and whine to the building managers.
- MS looks like a bunch of cry babies.
See it is funny. Look at it like someone screwing with MS, and suceeding. The fact that MS is legally correct is wholly inconsequential.Yeah, he stood up on his chopping board. So what. He wasn't cooking on it anymore. All of the comments characterizing this as some abhorent behavior have their roots in Morimoto's comments about worshiping knives and cutting boards. Well, guess what, most americans don't worship their cutting boards. Some of us may have antiques or heirlooms we don't want to soil, but, stepping on some disposable piece of crap is not unthinkable. So I wish Slashdotters would quit pretending that they would have even noticed this had Morimoto not pointed it out.
Secondly, yes Flay was cocky so are most of the other chefs on the show. Don't pretend otherwise. That is the point of the show, to get people worked up. If Morimoto was so offended he could have chosen not to do another show. But his (Morimotos "your are not a chef") comments were part of the whole show.
Having said that yes B.F. comes across as a prick.
For those who have the Sci-Fi channel The Invisible Man is a fantastic show. It is proof positive that a balance can be found between talking down to the audience and explaining things in a realistic manner. If you aren't a science nazi IM explains the things that happen in a somewhat believable and intelligent manner. I cannot recommend this show enough.
I wish Diane Feinstein would have the gumption to speak out this blatant waste of resources that will at best produce an absurd (and freedom-crushing) precedent.
Well, I'm not a California resident, but, it is my understanding that Feinstein is so secure in hir incumbency that she refuses to debate during election season. Californians need to vote her sorry arse out of office.
Rude? Would you care to elaborate? I am very curious what they said. Especially Swinestein.
What like:I haven't seen this movie, but, I would like to take this oppertunity to say your continued efforts to level out the Paul Hogan deficit will not be met with kindness in this part of the world. This makes the Chinese Spy Plane fiasco pale in comparison.
Cease and decist all Paul Hogan exports or face the consequences. You have been warned.
A bit thick aren't we? Expecting to be seen is not an analogue of expecting, or accepting having ones action recorded and archived in perpetuity.
Advertising a message board as anonymous gives the uninitiated a sense of insulation which is not only unwarranted, but, completely false. These troubles are born of ignorance.
This applies to cameras in public in that there is a reasonable expectation that in public my actions are not under scrutiny, that is one cavorts oneself differently in a public restroom than in the middle of the street. Cameras in public inculcate an unnatural sense of unease in much of the populace. Some of us wish to not be treated as children. It is no ones business as to my comings and goings without a proper court order. If I have done nothing wrong, then I should have no expectation that my actions are being monitored.
Cameras are a tool of a tyrannical nanny state.