ok, the way these guys are thinking, your phone is an "instrument", and the phone # melody is the "song". However, simply dialing my phone in my house does not violate copyright law. Copyright law involves COPYING. While the tones are transmitted to wherever it goes, it is not distributed. Wherever it goes, it does not get copied. And since this is only between 2 parties, this is not technically a performance (am i violating copyright law when i'm playing stairway to heaven on my guitar in front of a couple friends?). Sorry, but this does not stop telemarketers in any way, unless you copyright the #'s
I go to VT, and while we don't drive our honor code up the wall like some other school, our CS dept very much discourages any group work whatsoever. Basically, if you haven't holed yourself up in complete isolation till the program is due, you've probably violated the honor code somewhere along the line. They're so fervent about it they have a program running(i forget what's it's called, moss something or other) that will look for similarities between everyone's code. I'm not sure how well it works, but i know a few friends of mine who were caught cheating on a program their freshman year(though they submitted identicle code, so as far as i can tell they deserved it).
Sure, this pop up thing of a problem. But wouldn't it be easier to go yell at microsoft to include a pop-up disable feature in IE? This guy is a dickhole, but let's not forget that this ms could have given us an easy fix for this pop up shit.
I know what licensing is. My point is that it's time for this licensing bullshit to end. We don't have this licensing crap for other types of products, why should computer software be any different?
Why do we need EULAs,anyway? Why can't we just go with the "I buy something, it's mine" way of doing things? Once it leaves their hands and I own it, who the fuck are they to tell me what i can and can't do with it. Once it enters my computer(as long as i obtained it from legal means), it's mine to do with how i please.
ask redhat if they accept donations, or if you buy distros, buy the distros directly from them. Retailers probably will pocket most of the money that you give them(they gotta make a profit too). So if you're concerned about 100% of the money you are spending going to red hat, just do one of the 2 above.
because it was already ruled unconstitutional! If it is already unconstitutional to allow people to come up with their own encryption schemes, how can the government enforce the law it's proposing?????
If it were just a matter of adding backdoors which would exist in all crypto, I'd support it too.
This may be an unpopular viewpoint on/., but I'd personally rather have the government able to read my email (with a subpeona, of course) than see another event where dozens of relatives were milling around outside a disaster zone clutching photos of their lost father/son/daughter/wife/etc.
Your reasoning seems logical, but let me extend to you the consequences of back-door crypto.
First off, if there is a known vunerability in a system of encryption, that's just one more help for a 2-bit hacker to attack it.
Back-door encryption is like leaving an extra set of keys to your house in a "secret" place so that your kid(or in this case, the FBI) or whatever can get into the house without needing you to open it. There is still that small chance that someone else could find it. It's small, but why should i give hackers help in cracking my data?
The most important point, however, is that encryption IS NOT LIMITED TO EMAILS. Do you make any online orders? Guess what your credit card is encrypted. Would you even think for a second to trust that information to ANYONE other than the person you're making the transaction with? Do you feel comfortable knowing that the government could find out that imformation, even if they promise not to without "probable cause"? Are you comfortable knowing that any 2-bit hacker could break the encryption and steal those #'s?
Back-door encryption is just a stupid, stupid idea.
this isn't a ban. never once in any statements from clear channel have they said "you may not play these songs", they have just stated that they feel these songs are "inappropriate". However, the idiocy is what songs they've decided to include on their list. Some of these songs i can understand, but including anti-war songs and stuff like 'black hole sun' or 'under the bridge'? Whoever made this list was definitely in looneyville at the time he was making it. I just finished watching an MTV news bit and one of the guys who compiled the list says he including all rage against the machines songs because their songs are about "death and destuction". There's nothing wrong about being a little sensitive after a tragedy, but these guys have a few screws loose.
Did anyone else no that there was NOT A SINGLE HIP-HOP SONG! Also there were VERY FEW pop songs. Call me paranoid, but I think this a direct attack on rock and roll. Does anyone else think we're slipping into the 50's, where rock and roll is now the scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in america?
No sir, you are incorrect: the 16th amendment ratified in 1913
alright, i'll concede that point. i just read that little factoid somewhere on the net and assumed it to be true.
You haven't answered my point about WOD. Like it or not, the government has declared "war" on drug users and dealers and the "states who harbor them"(colombia, anyone?), just as it is now declaring "war" on terrorism and "states who harbor them" in much the same fashion. Now in the WOD, the U.S. government has basically assumed that every american citizen is assumed guilty, until proven innocent. This war on drugs is an utter failure, and we've already proven that curtailing or civil rights in the name of "national security" only helps the criminals more. The people who are talking about this "war on terrorism" are eerily using the same language that was used in the war on drugs, and many are saying that we should be using the same tactics that are being used on the war on drugs.
In addtion, the government does not trust me to plan my own retirement(social "security"), does not think i'm capable of using a firearm properly(idiotic gun control laws), does not trust me to educate my children(mandatory public eduacation), thinks i'm old enough to force(or 'drafted' as they say) me into military service, but irresponsible enough to have one beer. And the government does not trust me to use recreational drugs safely period.
Now, please explain to me, why the fuck should I trust a government that does not trust me back? Until it trusts me to live my own life, I will never trust this government.
People, our system of government works: civil liberites can be suspended during war and then be regained afterwards.
You are incorrect. Federal Income Tax was instituted again in 1942 as a "war measure". It ended up being permenant.
Oh and speaking of which, Some officials have been hinting that this will be one of those "never-ending" wars, like the "War on Drugs"(tm), while not a traditional "war", is still considered one. You can have your property seized without being charged with a crime, with virtually no hope of getting it back, even if you are innocent. All it takes is for someone to accuse you of trafficing in drugs, or suspect you of any "criminal activity". And guess what, they're doing it often.
This isn't the 1860s where our government had some sort of decency. The government didn't repeal the income tax after ww2 because they knew they could get away with not repealing it.
You're assuming that our government is trustworthy enough to give us our rights back. History has shown that they are not. You're a fool if you think otherwise.
The worst part of it is that civil liberties given up in vain. The law breakers always find ways around them.
Maybe music is a minor issue compared to everything else, but it's happening none theless, Clear Channel, one of the largest radio networks in the world, has issued a list of 150 songs that would be "inappropriate" for airing. I looked at this list, expecting to see a bunch of marilyn manson(suprisingly none were listed) and other death/metal the like. While there was some, there were also inexplicably a lot of songs that were simply put on the list solely based on their song titles. It seemed they just listed the songs simply because they had the words "War", "blood", or "destroys" in the titles. It listed songs that were anti-war("war pigs", "sunday bloody sunday"). Some of these songs actually helped me get through that horrible tuesday(particularly songs like "under the bridge" and "black hole sun"), and now Clear Channel thinks the songs are "inappropriate"? Maybe I am overreacting. I hope I am.
If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won.
If Gore had won, we would see the government acting in a different way.
I'd very much like you to prove that. I doubt that very much. There was almost nothing that differentiated between Gore and Bush other than their party name.
Either way, maybe if Gore was competent in running his campaign, nader wouldn't have mattered at all. Nader was just one factor, but Nader put gore's defeat in the best way, "Only Al Gore can beat Al Gore".
we are slowly turning into a police state, and I'm not being overly paranoid. the terrorists must be laughing a riot now, content that us government has passed a law that won't do anything to them but takes away freedom from the american people. Just remember that this is just the beginning, unless we stop it now!
Re:Inconvenience vs. safety
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that Franklin was contemplating "inconvieniences" when he talked of essential liberties
It always starts with inconviences, something that you don't care to much about. Then it comes to things slightly more inconvienient. And then more so. by the time it reaches to something you consider an "essential liberty", it is far too late to do anything about it. Such is the nature of the evoluttion from a free society to a police state.
You just don't get it, do you?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I've read it and I think it's in poor taste.
Most people always seem to think that about Libretarians. Though I found it even more insulting when i saw a politician from Virginia go on CNN saying he didn't want to hear anymore about education spending or health care spending, that we should make our military the top priority. Now that's repugnent.
And Mr. Browne has made a damn good point, something that you obviously don't want to because it's just the plain-old ugly truth: Our government is partially responsible for this. But of course, our government will never admit that. And that in itself spits on the graves of all the innocnent people who died on tuesday. Our government is guilty of so many crimes, and time and time again the american people have had to suffer for it. And this time we have suffered greatly for it. Yes, we should find the people responsible, but we must hold our own government accountable for its actions as well. Our government has held immunity for its misdeeds for far too long.
The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy. But they shouldn't be a surprise.
It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth -- that during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda. But sanity was a prior casualty: it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the first place.
Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It was only a matter of time until Americans would have to suffer personally for it. It is a terrible tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to suffer for the sins of the guilty.
When we will learn that wec an't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?
President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded Grenada.
And on and on it goes. Did we think the people who lost their families and friends and property in all that destruction would love America for what happened?
When will we learn that violence always begets violence?
Teaching Lessons
Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar al-Qaddafi a lesson about terrorism. But shortly thereafter a TWA plane was destroyed over Scotland, and our government is convinced it was Libyans who did it.
When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches anything but resentment -- that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance.
How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone describe the terrorist attacks as "cowardly acts"? But as misguided and despicable as they were, they were anything but cowardly. The people who committed them knowingly gave their lives for whatever stupid beliefs they held.
But what about the American Presidents who order bombings of innocent people -- while the
Presidents remain completely insulated from any danger? What would you call their acts?
When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason in the heat of battle almost always assures that we will lose the battle?
Losing our Last Freedoms And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be told we must give up more of our freedoms to avenge what never should have happened in the first place. When will we learn that it makes no sense to give up our freedoms in the name of freedom?
What to Do What _should_ be done?
First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.
Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.
Third, find a way, with _enforceable_ constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America.
Patriotism?
There are those who will say this article is
unpatriotic and un-American -- that this isn ot a time to question our country or ourl eaders.
When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason to be patriotic?
Pay royalties to spyglass for every single copy of windows 98 sold(and possibly 2000). There was one clear fact made by this whole damn trial: IE was essentially *part* of the O.S., which microsoft insisted. Now, the agreement between MS and Spyglass was that spyglass would get royalties for every copy of IE they sold, something that MS thought they would get away with if they went ahead and gave it away for free. Of course, since they have now insisted that IE is a *piece* of the Operating System, Spyglass *is* entitled to a *piece* of the earnings from Win98 as well. Of course, if spyglass is dead, this point is moot. Does anyone know how spyglass is doing?
As long as you have lamers who want to ruin the fun of actually playing the game for themselves, this'll continue to happen. Just let them. Image is everything in america, and people like to flaunt a good image. Whether it's a flashy looking car, a hot chick, a huge mansion, or an ultra-powerful char on diablo ii. It's good old american values at work, so not really a problem per se. Can't really do anything about it anyway. If you ban that stuff on ebay, they'll just go through other means to sell their chars/items. Just play the game, have fun, and ignore the lamers.
Slashdot Mirror
Has nothing to do with this case, but....
in the future, will we have to check in to the trademark office before we name our kids?
ok, the way these guys are thinking, your phone is an "instrument", and the phone # melody is the "song". However, simply dialing my phone in my house does not violate copyright law. Copyright law involves COPYING. While the tones are transmitted to wherever it goes, it is not distributed. Wherever it goes, it does not get copied. And since this is only between 2 parties, this is not technically a performance (am i violating copyright law when i'm playing stairway to heaven on my guitar in front of a couple friends?). Sorry, but this does not stop telemarketers in any way, unless you copyright the #'s
I go to VT, and while we don't drive our honor code up the wall like some other school, our CS dept very much discourages any group work whatsoever. Basically, if you haven't holed yourself up in complete isolation till the program is due, you've probably violated the honor code somewhere along the line. They're so fervent about it they have a program running(i forget what's it's called, moss something or other) that will look for similarities between everyone's code. I'm not sure how well it works, but i know a few friends of mine who were caught cheating on a program their freshman year(though they submitted identicle code, so as far as i can tell they deserved it).
Sure, this pop up thing of a problem. But wouldn't it be easier to go yell at microsoft to include a pop-up disable feature in IE? This guy is a dickhole, but let's not forget that this ms could have given us an easy fix for this pop up shit.
haven't upgraded yet and i don't plan to. wmp 7.0 is such a piece of shit anyway.
... if this is the reason that I can't seem to connect to any sun sites?
Looks like mafiaboy is fucked after all.
I know what licensing is. My point is that it's time for this licensing bullshit to end. We don't have this licensing crap for other types of products, why should computer software be any different?
Why do we need EULAs,anyway? Why can't we just go with the "I buy something, it's mine" way of doing things? Once it leaves their hands and I own it, who the fuck are they to tell me what i can and can't do with it. Once it enters my computer(as long as i obtained it from legal means), it's mine to do with how i please.
ask redhat if they accept donations, or if you buy distros, buy the distros directly from them. Retailers probably will pocket most of the money that you give them(they gotta make a profit too). So if you're concerned about 100% of the money you are spending going to red hat, just do one of the 2 above.
because it was already ruled unconstitutional! If it is already unconstitutional to allow people to come up with their own encryption schemes, how can the government enforce the law it's proposing?????
If it were just a matter of adding backdoors which would exist in all crypto, I'd support it too.
/., but I'd personally rather have the government able to read my email (with a subpeona, of course) than see another event where dozens of relatives were milling around outside a disaster zone clutching photos of their lost father/son/daughter/wife/etc.
This may be an unpopular viewpoint on
Your reasoning seems logical, but let me extend to you the consequences of back-door crypto.
First off, if there is a known vunerability in a system of encryption, that's just one more help for a 2-bit hacker to attack it.
Back-door encryption is like leaving an extra set of keys to your house in a "secret" place so that your kid(or in this case, the FBI) or whatever can get into the house without needing you to open it. There is still that small chance that someone else could find it. It's small, but why should i give hackers help in cracking my data?
The most important point, however, is that encryption IS NOT LIMITED TO EMAILS. Do you make any online orders? Guess what your credit card is encrypted. Would you even think for a second to trust that information to ANYONE other than the person you're making the transaction with? Do you feel comfortable knowing that the government could find out that imformation, even if they promise not to without "probable cause"? Are you comfortable knowing that any 2-bit hacker could break the encryption and steal those #'s?
Back-door encryption is just a stupid, stupid idea.
How would you feel if the government could figure out your credit card #'s because of mandated backdoor encryption?
this isn't a ban. never once in any statements from clear channel have they said "you may not play these songs", they have just stated that they feel these songs are "inappropriate". However, the idiocy is what songs they've decided to include on their list. Some of these songs i can understand, but including anti-war songs and stuff like 'black hole sun' or 'under the bridge'? Whoever made this list was definitely in looneyville at the time he was making it. I just finished watching an MTV news bit and one of the guys who compiled the list says he including all rage against the machines songs because their songs are about "death and destuction". There's nothing wrong about being a little sensitive after a tragedy, but these guys have a few screws loose.
Did anyone else no that there was NOT A SINGLE HIP-HOP SONG! Also there were VERY FEW pop songs. Call me paranoid, but I think this a direct attack on rock and roll. Does anyone else think we're slipping into the 50's, where rock and roll is now the scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in america?
No sir, you are incorrect: the 16th amendment ratified in 1913
alright, i'll concede that point. i just read that little factoid somewhere on the net and assumed it to be true.
You haven't answered my point about WOD. Like it or not, the government has declared "war" on drug users and dealers and the "states who harbor them"(colombia, anyone?), just as it is now declaring "war" on terrorism and "states who harbor them" in much the same fashion. Now in the WOD, the U.S. government has basically assumed that every american citizen is assumed guilty, until proven innocent. This war on drugs is an utter failure, and we've already proven that curtailing or civil rights in the name of "national security" only helps the criminals more. The people who are talking about this "war on terrorism" are eerily using the same language that was used in the war on drugs, and many are saying that we should be using the same tactics that are being used on the war on drugs.
In addtion, the government does not trust me to plan my own retirement(social "security"), does not think i'm capable of using a firearm properly(idiotic gun control laws), does not trust me to educate my children(mandatory public eduacation), thinks i'm old enough to force(or 'drafted' as they say) me into military service, but irresponsible enough to have one beer. And the government does not trust me to use recreational drugs safely period.
Now, please explain to me, why the fuck should I trust a government that does not trust me back? Until it trusts me to live my own life, I will never trust this government.
People, our system of government works: civil liberites can be suspended during war and then be regained afterwards.
You are incorrect. Federal Income Tax was instituted again in 1942 as a "war measure". It ended up being permenant.
Oh and speaking of which, Some officials have been hinting that this will be one of those "never-ending" wars, like the "War on Drugs"(tm), while not a traditional "war", is still considered one. You can have your property seized without being charged with a crime, with virtually no hope of getting it back, even if you are innocent. All it takes is for someone to accuse you of trafficing in drugs, or suspect you of any "criminal activity". And guess what, they're doing it often.
This isn't the 1860s where our government had some sort of decency. The government didn't repeal the income tax after ww2 because they knew they could get away with not repealing it.
You're assuming that our government is trustworthy enough to give us our rights back. History has shown that they are not. You're a fool if you think otherwise.
The worst part of it is that civil liberties given up in vain. The law breakers always find ways around them.
Maybe music is a minor issue compared to everything else, but it's happening none theless, Clear Channel, one of the largest radio networks in the world, has issued a list of 150 songs that would be "inappropriate" for airing. I looked at this list, expecting to see a bunch of marilyn manson(suprisingly none were listed) and other death/metal the like. While there was some, there were also inexplicably a lot of songs that were simply put on the list solely based on their song titles. It seemed they just listed the songs simply because they had the words "War", "blood", or "destroys" in the titles. It listed songs that were anti-war("war pigs", "sunday bloody sunday"). Some of these songs actually helped me get through that horrible tuesday(particularly songs like "under the bridge" and "black hole sun"), and now Clear Channel thinks the songs are "inappropriate"? Maybe I am overreacting. I hope I am.
If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won.
If Gore had won, we would see the government acting in a different way.
I'd very much like you to prove that. I doubt that very much. There was almost nothing that differentiated between Gore and Bush other than their party name.
Either way, maybe if Gore was competent in running his campaign, nader wouldn't have mattered at all. Nader was just one factor, but Nader put gore's defeat in the best way, "Only Al Gore can beat Al Gore".
we are slowly turning into a police state, and I'm not being overly paranoid. the terrorists must be laughing a riot now, content that us government has passed a law that won't do anything to them but takes away freedom from the american people. Just remember that this is just the beginning, unless we stop it now!
I don't think that Franklin was contemplating "inconvieniences" when he talked of essential liberties
It always starts with inconviences, something that you don't care to much about. Then it comes to things slightly more inconvienient. And then more so. by the time it reaches to something you consider an "essential liberty", it is far too late to do anything about it. Such is the nature of the evoluttion from a free society to a police state.
Yes, I've read it and I think it's in poor taste.
Most people always seem to think that about Libretarians. Though I found it even more insulting when i saw a politician from Virginia go on CNN saying he didn't want to hear anymore about education spending or health care spending, that we should make our military the top priority. Now that's repugnent.
And Mr. Browne has made a damn good point, something that you obviously don't want to because it's just the plain-old ugly truth: Our government is partially responsible for this. But of course, our government will never admit that. And that in itself spits on the graves of all the innocnent people who died on tuesday. Our government is guilty of so many crimes, and time and time again the american people have had to suffer for it. And this time we have suffered greatly for it. Yes, we should find the people responsible, but we must hold our own government accountable for its actions as well. Our government has held immunity for its misdeeds for far too long.
he makes some good points.
When Will We Learn?
by Harry Browne
The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy. But they shouldn't be a surprise.
It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth -- that during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda. But sanity was a prior casualty: it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the first place.
Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It was only a matter of time until Americans would have to suffer personally for it. It is a terrible tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to suffer for the sins of the guilty.
When we will learn that wec an't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?
President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded Grenada.
And on and on it goes. Did we think the people who lost their families and friends and property in all that destruction would love America for what happened?
When will we learn that violence always begets violence?
Teaching Lessons
Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar al-Qaddafi a lesson about terrorism. But shortly thereafter a TWA plane was destroyed over Scotland, and our government is convinced it was Libyans who did it.
When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches anything but resentment -- that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance.
How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone describe the terrorist attacks as "cowardly acts"? But as misguided and despicable as they were, they were anything but cowardly. The people who committed them knowingly gave their lives for whatever stupid beliefs they held.
But what about the American Presidents who order bombings of innocent people -- while the
Presidents remain completely insulated from any danger? What would you call their acts?
When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason in the heat of battle almost always assures that we will lose the battle?
Losing our Last Freedoms And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be told we must give up more of our freedoms to avenge what never should have happened in the first place. When will we learn that it makes no sense to give up our freedoms in the name of freedom?
What to Do What _should_ be done?
First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.
Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.
Third, find a way, with _enforceable_ constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America.
Patriotism?
There are those who will say this article is
unpatriotic and un-American -- that this isn ot a time to question our country or ourl eaders.
When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason to be patriotic?
Pay royalties to spyglass for every single copy of windows 98 sold(and possibly 2000). There was one clear fact made by this whole damn trial: IE was essentially *part* of the O.S., which microsoft insisted. Now, the agreement between MS and Spyglass was that spyglass would get royalties for every copy of IE they sold, something that MS thought they would get away with if they went ahead and gave it away for free. Of course, since they have now insisted that IE is a *piece* of the Operating System, Spyglass *is* entitled to a *piece* of the earnings from Win98 as well. Of course, if spyglass is dead, this point is moot. Does anyone know how spyglass is doing?
As long as you have lamers who want to ruin the fun of actually playing the game for themselves, this'll continue to happen. Just let them. Image is everything in america, and people like to flaunt a good image. Whether it's a flashy looking car, a hot chick, a huge mansion, or an ultra-powerful char on diablo ii. It's good old american values at work, so not really a problem per se. Can't really do anything about it anyway. If you ban that stuff on ebay, they'll just go through other means to sell their chars/items. Just play the game, have fun, and ignore the lamers.