Did you read the article? He didn't just advocate "giving them a hard time". He advocated illegal activities. This is not, and never has been, protected speech. He advocates the restricing of their rights, specifically, destroying their property, and interfering with their ability to travel.
You do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.
He didn't just advocate "giving them a hard time". He advocated illegal activities. This is not, and never has been, protected speech. He advocates the restricing of their rights, specifically, destroying their property, and interfering with their ability to travel.
You do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.
If so, why the president can occupy public space and his supporters can be noisy and onboxious, the security roadblocks can prevent the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc.? You can actually do these things, provided you have permission of the owners of the property you are gathering on. In this case, the "owners" are the city/town (typically). You merely need to get the permits to do so.
The protesters can do the same. That's essentially what the "Free-speech zones" are. Public places that have been set aside with the proper permits for a large public gathering.
It cuts both ways. The prez should either organize meetings on his own property (I think his ranch is big enough for this purpose), or the protesters should be allowed to his vicinity. Or, alternatively, both groups can be given permits for different areas of public property to spread theri message. Oh wait! That's what free-speech zones are! No inequality there.
And the best thing about the seperate areas is that both groups can get their message out, without worry that the other will drown out their message (which would be restricting freedom of speech).
No. The last thing professionals need is a union interfering in their ability to negotiate their own employment terms.
This policy doesn not mean you can't be paid for overtime. It only says that your employer doesn't have to make it compaly policy to pay you for overtime.
While the right to travel freely is a right, specific methods of travel are privileges. Specifically, the right to drive a car on a public road is a privilege.
And it hasn't made it to the USSC because it's pretty damn self-evident. People are denied driver's liscences all the time, and liscences being revoked by the DMV or the courts is a pretty common occurance.
Denying someone the ability to drive themselves on a public road does not deny them the ability to travel.
Could someone please explain why dynamic linking to a given library falls into the same category as redistribution? Just because a dependency exists doesn't mean that two seperate entities are suddenly one entity. It would seem to me that if we consider linking an application to a library to be "redistribution", then why don't we consider hypertext links to external web sites to be redistribution?
the idea of democracy is exactly what you are afraid of suffering from.
That is why I prefer constitutional republics (like what we have in the US) to democracy. I like my freedom to have at least some protection against the fickle whims of the majority.
if the majority decides that capital punishment is unconstitutional
First of all, it is the judiciary that decides on whether something is unconstitutional, not the majority (the legislature, by proxy). As for changing the Constitution to make something constitutional (or unconstitutional), that requires more than a simple majority. You'll learn about all this when you take civics classes in high school.
i would love to be indebted to the companies
Indebted? Did you even read my post? I was asked to list organizations that provide free or greatly reduced perscription drugs (among other things). There is no indebtedness. They will provide the drug at a cost you can afford, (including a price of $0, if that is what you can afford).
they instituted a law that the 'majority' of people wanted.
Yes they did. I have no problems with lawmakers institutiiong laws that are within the (limited) scope of government. When they expand the scope of government, and trample freedoms in the process, they have gone too far.
whats the difference, with all your wealth,
All my wealth? What makes you think I am wealthy? I can assure you that I am not. In fact, I held my current beliefs even when I was living in poverty, while a student, and again while unemployed.
if you pay an extra $100 a year to help your fellow man?
Did you look at the numbers given in the "1040" post? It's $100 for this, $50 for that, another $75 here, and $125 there. It adds up fast.
But really, the total dollar amount really doesn't matter. I don't mind helping my fellow man, and regularly do so in greater amounts than $100. Frankly, I enjoy helping my fellow man. But I oppose being forced to do so. I encourage charity, but would never force people to be charitable. There is no charity that is worth sacrificing individual freedom for.
what happened to your patriotism? did it stop at your wallet?
My patriotism is linked directly to how well this country defends individual freedom. When the govenrment forces people to be charitable, it is doing the very thing it is supposed to defent them against.
Huh? And how else would you facilitate buying collective services? Form a not-for-profit group that bargans for lower prices. It's quite common in the United States.
That is democracy at work Which is why we need a strong Constitution that limits the scope of govenment. Otherwise we suffer from the tyranny of the majority.
What are some of these "many organizations" that will provide (significantly) discounted [stuff] All of the major drug manufacturers (including 3M, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Mvers Squibb, Du Pont Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, etc.) Here's a brief introduction guide to obtaining free or reduced-cost healthcare at several NY State hospitals: http://www.citizenactionny.org/Hospita l_Free_Care_ Consumer_Guide.pdf There are plenty more resources out there. The resources that may be of interest to you will depend largely on what condition you have that requires medical treatment.
As far as I know, hospitals will generally help you work out a payment plan if necessary, but if you can't afford to have your appendix removed, tough luck. Hospitals are barred, by law, from refusing to treat someone with a life-threatening condition.
Except that you would be paying less because everybody would be contributing. It is not the govenment's place to force people to buy services collectively.
It does in a time and age when health care is extremely expensive. Without health coverage, it is unlikely you can afford health care.
Not remotely true. There are numerous organizations that exist for the sole purpose of providing financial assisance to anyone who needs health care, but lacks health coverage. Just about every hospital has people on staff that will work with people to get them the care they need, at a price they can afford.
No. I, like most other Americans, already provide myself with full health coverage, under which I receive health care.
Under universal healthcare, I would be not only providing that coverage for myself, but I would be forced to provide for other people as well, as would every other American.
Also, please note that health coverage and health care two different things. Lacking health coverage does not mean that you will lack health care.
No one can take away your life, liberty of pursuit of happyness. But they are not required to facilitate those things either. You are responsible for providing for yourself. If someone else freely chooses to help you, so much the better. But that help must be voluntary.
It's not a question of not being entitleed to live. Rather, no one is entitled to kill you.
Taxes are a necessary evil. Govenment must have money to operate. But as long as the govenment sticks to the bare necessities to keep peoplefrom trampling each others rights, the taxes will be minimal.
I care greatly for my fellow man, thanks. That's why I help whenever possible. What I do not condone, it forcing people to help others. That's wrong.
You have a right to live in the sense that no one is entitled to kill you.
So you don't think people are entitled to health care? No one is entitled to anything. Shouldn't you be allowed health care for free? Only if someone is willing to give it to you for free. No one should be forced to provide anything for anyone. [Hummer Comment] Why do you assume that only rich americans receive health care?
[i]So you don't think people are entitled to health care?[/i] No one is entitled to anything. [i]Shouldn't you be allowed health care for free?[/i] Only if someone is willing to give it to you for free. No one should be forced to provide anything for anyone. [i][/i] Why do you assume that only rich americans receive health care?
Under open source licencing, particularly the GPL, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You have the CHOICE to use GPL'd code in your project. If you want to use the code, you must follow the rules that the creator of the original code has layed out.
Exactly! We should argue the way the law IS! Creative expression and artistic expression are just two types of "expressive speech". One can also express facts, equations, etc. And these are given equal protection as the creative forms of expression. Expressive speech != artistic speech.
The only exceptions are libel, slander, etc. (as you have pointed out), and it doesn't matter whether the slander is creative or not, that type of speech is not protected.
So the argument over whether code is artistic or creative is irrelevent. It's still protected speech.
That is how code is expresive. In same way looking at a Harley Wrapped in Cellophane can illicit thought and imagination in an Art lover, a well modeled solution to a code problem can illicit thought and imagination in a Coder.
Code does not have to be artistic or elicit emotion to be expressive. Telling someone "the sky is blue" is also expressive. Not artistic, not an opinion, but expressive none the less. To constitute expression, something only needs to convey a message. Whether the message is artistic or not is immaterial. Expressing the fact that the sky is blue is factual expression, and it is protected by the same set of laws that protect artistic expression.
Could someone please explain how whether something is artistic or not has anything to do with DeCSS? Expression does not have to be artistic to be protected. Factual expressions are given the same protections as artistic expressions the last time I checked.
What do you mean that all speech isn't expression? Or are you making the common mistake of assuming that freedom of expression/speech is limited to artistic expression? If I say to you "my pancil is yellow", that is expression. Specificly, factial expression. Artisitc expression, factual expression, expression of opinions, are all expression, and all fall under freedom of expression.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the article? He didn't just advocate "giving them a hard time". He advocated illegal activities. This is not, and never has been, protected speech. He advocates the restricing of their rights, specifically, destroying their property, and interfering with their ability to travel.
You do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.
He didn't just advocate "giving them a hard time". He advocated illegal activities. This is not, and never has been, protected speech. He advocates the restricing of their rights, specifically, destroying their property, and interfering with their ability to travel.
You do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.
Acting as a keylogger would require it to already have root permissions
If so, why the president can occupy public space and his supporters can be noisy and onboxious, the security roadblocks can prevent the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc.?
You can actually do these things, provided you have permission of the owners of the property you are gathering on. In this case, the "owners" are the city/town (typically). You merely need to get the permits to do so.
The protesters can do the same. That's essentially what the "Free-speech zones" are. Public places that have been set aside with the proper permits for a large public gathering.
It cuts both ways. The prez should either organize meetings on his own property (I think his ranch is big enough for this purpose), or the protesters should be allowed to his vicinity. Or, alternatively, both groups can be given permits for different areas of public property to spread theri message. Oh wait! That's what free-speech zones are! No inequality there.
And the best thing about the seperate areas is that both groups can get their message out, without worry that the other will drown out their message (which would be restricting freedom of speech).
The very good Radeon 9800's can be had for half that.
No. The last thing professionals need is a union interfering in their ability to negotiate their own employment terms.
This policy doesn not mean you can't be paid for overtime. It only says that your employer doesn't have to make it compaly policy to pay you for overtime.
I realized, after posting, that I had forgotten to put the word 'right' in quotes.
While the right to travel freely is a right, specific methods of travel are privileges. Specifically, the right to drive a car on a public road is a privilege.
And it hasn't made it to the USSC because it's pretty damn self-evident. People are denied driver's liscences all the time, and liscences being revoked by the DMV or the courts is a pretty common occurance.
Denying someone the ability to drive themselves on a public road does not deny them the ability to travel.
Could someone please explain why dynamic linking to a given library falls into the same category as redistribution? Just because a dependency exists doesn't mean that two seperate entities are suddenly one entity. It would seem to me that if we consider linking an application to a library to be "redistribution", then why don't we consider hypertext links to external web sites to be redistribution?
the idea of democracy is exactly what you are afraid of suffering from.
That is why I prefer constitutional republics (like what we have in the US) to democracy. I like my freedom to have at least some protection against the fickle whims of the majority.
if the majority decides that capital punishment is unconstitutional
First of all, it is the judiciary that decides on whether something is unconstitutional, not the majority (the legislature, by proxy).
As for changing the Constitution to make something constitutional (or unconstitutional), that requires more than a simple majority. You'll learn about all this when you take civics classes in high school.
i would love to be indebted to the companies
Indebted? Did you even read my post? I was asked to list organizations that provide free or greatly reduced perscription drugs (among other things). There is no indebtedness. They will provide the drug at a cost you can afford, (including a price of $0, if that is what you can afford).
they instituted a law that the 'majority' of people wanted.
Yes they did. I have no problems with lawmakers institutiiong laws that are within the (limited) scope of government. When they expand the scope of government, and trample freedoms in the process, they have gone too far.
whats the difference, with all your wealth,
All my wealth? What makes you think I am wealthy? I can assure you that I am not. In fact, I held my current beliefs even when I was living in poverty, while a student, and again while unemployed.
if you pay an extra $100 a year to help your fellow man?
Did you look at the numbers given in the "1040" post? It's $100 for this, $50 for that, another $75 here, and $125 there. It adds up fast.
But really, the total dollar amount really doesn't matter. I don't mind helping my fellow man, and regularly do so in greater amounts than $100. Frankly, I enjoy helping my fellow man. But I oppose being forced to do so. I encourage charity, but would never force people to be charitable. There is no charity that is worth sacrificing individual freedom for.
what happened to your patriotism? did it stop at your wallet?
My patriotism is linked directly to how well this country defends individual freedom. When the govenrment forces people to be charitable, it is doing the very thing it is supposed to defent them against.
Huh? And how else would you facilitate buying collective services?
a l_Free_Care_ Consumer_Guide.pdf
Form a not-for-profit group that bargans for lower prices. It's quite common in the United States.
That is democracy at work
Which is why we need a strong Constitution that limits the scope of govenment. Otherwise we suffer from the tyranny of the majority.
What are some of these "many organizations" that will provide (significantly) discounted [stuff]
All of the major drug manufacturers (including 3M, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Mvers Squibb, Du Pont Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, etc.)
Here's a brief introduction guide to obtaining free or reduced-cost healthcare at several NY State hospitals:
http://www.citizenactionny.org/Hospit
There are plenty more resources out there. The resources that may be of interest to you will depend largely on what condition you have that requires medical treatment.
As far as I know, hospitals will generally help you work out a payment plan if necessary, but if you can't afford to have your appendix removed, tough luck.
Hospitals are barred, by law, from refusing to treat someone with a life-threatening condition.
Except that you would be paying less because everybody would be contributing.
It is not the govenment's place to force people to buy services collectively.
It does in a time and age when health care is extremely expensive. Without health coverage, it is unlikely you can afford health care.
Not remotely true. There are numerous organizations that exist for the sole purpose of providing financial assisance to anyone who needs health care, but lacks health coverage. Just about every hospital has people on staff that will work with people to get them the care they need, at a price they can afford.
No. I, like most other Americans, already provide myself with full health coverage, under which I receive health care.
Under universal healthcare, I would be not only providing that coverage for myself, but I would be forced to provide for other people as well, as would every other American.
Also, please note that health coverage and health care two different things. Lacking health coverage does not mean that you will lack health care.
No one can take away your life, liberty of pursuit of happyness. But they are not required to facilitate those things either. You are responsible for providing for yourself. If someone else freely chooses to help you, so much the better. But that help must be voluntary.
It's not a question of not being entitleed to live. Rather, no one is entitled to kill you.
Taxes are a necessary evil. Govenment must have money to operate. But as long as the govenment sticks to the bare necessities to keep peoplefrom trampling each others rights, the taxes will be minimal.
I care greatly for my fellow man, thanks. That's why I help whenever possible. What I do not condone, it forcing people to help others. That's wrong.
You have a right to live in the sense that no one is entitled to kill you.
So you don't think people are entitled to health care?
No one is entitled to anything.
Shouldn't you be allowed health care for free?
Only if someone is willing to give it to you for free. No one should be forced to provide anything for anyone.
[Hummer Comment]
Why do you assume that only rich americans receive health care?
[i]So you don't think people are entitled to health care?[/i]
No one is entitled to anything.
[i]Shouldn't you be allowed health care for free?[/i]
Only if someone is willing to give it to you for free. No one should be forced to provide anything for anyone.
[i][/i]
Why do you assume that only rich americans receive health care?
Fessick is a Turkish giant! He's in amazing shape.
No, he's dead.
Will your P90 decode an MP3 that was encoded at 320kbps?
Under open source licencing, particularly the GPL, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You have the CHOICE to use GPL'd code in your project. If you want to use the code, you must follow the rules that the creator of the original code has layed out.
Exactly! We should argue the way the law IS! Creative expression and artistic expression are just two types of "expressive speech". One can also express facts, equations, etc. And these are given equal protection as the creative forms of expression. Expressive speech != artistic speech.
The only exceptions are libel, slander, etc. (as you have pointed out), and it doesn't matter whether the slander is creative or not, that type of speech is not protected.
So the argument over whether code is artistic or creative is irrelevent. It's still protected speech.
That is how code is expresive. In same way looking at a Harley Wrapped in Cellophane can illicit thought and imagination in an Art lover, a well modeled solution to a code problem can illicit thought and imagination in a Coder.
Code does not have to be artistic or elicit emotion to be expressive. Telling someone "the sky is blue" is also expressive. Not artistic, not an opinion, but expressive none the less. To constitute expression, something only needs to convey a message. Whether the message is artistic or not is immaterial. Expressing the fact that the sky is blue is factual expression, and it is protected by the same set of laws that protect artistic expression.
Could someone please explain how whether something is artistic or not has anything to do with DeCSS? Expression does not have to be artistic to be protected. Factual expressions are given the same protections as artistic expressions the last time I checked.
What do you mean that all speech isn't expression? Or are you making the common mistake of assuming that freedom of expression/speech is limited to artistic expression? If I say to you "my pancil is yellow", that is expression. Specificly, factial expression. Artisitc expression, factual expression, expression of opinions, are all expression, and all fall under freedom of expression.
that's: prase, not prase.
Slashdot is exceptionally slow today, and I interupted the preview.