Utter, complete bullshit. You apparently haven't read a single word written by our founding fathers, the people who drafted the Constitution. If you had, you'd know that they were almost universally opposed to the establishment of a large standing army.
You see, they had this funny idea that standing armies encouraged government to oppress the citizenry, primarily by shooting people who disagreed with it. They favored militias as an alternative not only to prevent the formation of a large standing army, but also to keep the people well-armed in case their government got out of control. If certain low-lifes in the government tried to run roughshod over the Constitution, it was expected that the citizenry would pick up their rifles, march to the state or federal capital where said low-lifes were scheming to make themselves kings, and shoot them all dead.
Our founding fathers thought that force was an excellent way to deal with nascent tyranny. Of course they had balls, whereas their descendents today are cowardly, bleating sheep so terrified of the thought of their neighbors going armed that they piss themselves just thinking about it.
That doesn't really seem to matter. Just look at how effective laws have been on the 'war against drugs'. And yet, despite their abysmal failures as well as their hypocritical exceptions (e.g., alcohol) people will turn rabid and froth at the mouth in favor of passing yet more ineffective laws in this paper-tiger legislative circus of re-election politics.
It seems new laws, making more things illegal will simply become another "gotcha" for folks using legitimate software.
That's the point. If there are so many laws that every citizen unknowingly violates a few every day of their lives then the government can come a-knockin' any time it pleases. Everyone becomes a criminal and everyone can be prosecuted - unless they do what the hell the jackboots tell them to do, without complaint.
...that California is just one of fifty states, and that I don't live there. It was crazy enough when Arnie got elected governor (I was rooting for the porn star, but alas - I didn't get to vote), but you nutbags pass idiotic laws like they were going out of style.
I think I'm going to try to get the Oregon-California Border Fortification and Immigration Denial bill presented to my state legislature again....
Actually, most of them want to be absolved form decision-making and responsibility altogether. Don't believe me? Teach in public schools for a couple of years and watch as the despair slowly poisons your soul.
The 'parents' of today often don't want to do any parenting at all. If their kid does something unacceptable, they'll blame everyone but themselves for how their little brat was brought up. Seems to be that the psychological maturity of most boomers arrested around the age of 14 and there they remain.
I suspect many of these people would breathe a private sight of relief if America became a dictatorship. With power over the government stripped from them, they'd always have a convenient punching bag to blame all of their personal failures on.
Oregonians have always known that Californians are arrogant, crazy freaks. A whole shitload of the fuckers moved into our state in the '80's, proving beyond a doubt that all of our cherished stereotypes about Californians were not only accurate, but in fact understated. Fortunately the discovery that our dreary, rainy winters last about 9 months was good enough to drive many of them away.
One of my fervent hopes is that global warming will make the constant rain a year-round phenomenon, shaking loose the rest like fleas on a freshly-collared dog.
And let's not forget the 9th and 10th amendments. There are just too many idiots these days who think that the only rights a citizen has are those spelled out in the first five amendments, and that the rest somehow 'don't count'.
The Constitution isn't a vehicle for defining rights, but the *limitations of government power*. All those yahoos who think otherwise are encouraged to actually read it sometime, especially if you're going to comment on it.
Here we have the morally righteous leading the charge against hiring hackers who've engaged in criminal activities in the past because they can't ever be trusted again; and yet these same folks keep voting in Congressmen who themselves have criminal records, ranging from DUIs to bribery to racketeering to assault to spousal abuse to sexual misconduct with minors.
So I guess the message here is that you can't afford to compromise when it comes to hiring IT staff, but you don't have to be nearly as selective when voting in members of the legislative branch of your government.
This'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
(You can google the criminal records of your Congressmen rather easily on your own, so there's no need for a link - do it yourself. You may find the results enlightening. Or not. This is slashdot, after all.)
You have a right to privacy, but you don't have a right to a domain name.
We have every right not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution, and not specifically given to the government by ourselves through our legislators.
Too many people these days think that the only rights we have are those listed in the First through Fifth Amendments, or derivative rights. This isn't true. Refer to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if you think otherwise.
It is not one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to people.
The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state that every power not expressly granted to the government via the Constitution belongs to the people. The government can only obtain the right to violate anonymity if we grant it to them, and under the specific cases that we allow.
Do try to remember that the government is our servant, and not our master.
That makes for defacto control of a big portion of the "net".
An ever-smaller portion of the net with each passing year. So far all such laws have been abysmal failures, and that situation doesn't seem to be changing.
But if no felony charges stick, then this 'charge' won't matter.
Except for the legal costs, which you'll have to pay, and the time spent in jail if you can't make bail.
Sounds to me like this is a pretty nifty way for a government body that doesn't happen to like your version of free speech to level false charges backed with ridiculous jail times as a credible threat. And if you think that the government is above such things, or that you'll somehow get justice for these acts, you've been smoking waaaaay too much crack.
Not to mention the ludicrous nature of trying to enforce U.S. laws on a world-wide system (we've seen how effective that stupidity's been so far) or the idea that spam that isn't fraud is somehow a criminal, rather than civil, offense.
Like I've said all along, just what we need! More inane laws! Soon I won't be able to take a shit without permission.
Whether the argument is valid or not, it does come from a large number of people and countries, not just some liberal movement.
Almost right. It comes from a bunch of whining liberals spread all across the globe, few of whom have had their daughters raped and strangled with their own pantyhose.
Fortunately these little losers don't hold sway in the U.S.
This isn't restricted to just the government bodies you mention. It's a basic truism for many federal and state bodies, and sometimes even local ones. Universities which operate with government handouts are commonly hit with this sort of 'budgeting' as well; for example, just a few weeks ago my wife was told to spend approximately $50,000 in her budget right away, or her budget next year would be cut.
Government ENCOURAGES waste. It justifies taxes, and more importantly, pork.
Any venture providing access to space would most certainly have to have their payloads approved by the US government, even if the launching platform is 5000 miles out into the pacific somewhere.
Any attempt to control this by the U.S. government will be opposed by me, a U.S. citizen. There are a number of us who'd rather have an elevator than no elevator at all, and others who think that the involvement of any government in the operation of the elevator is a very bad idea.
We could fail to influence our government to butt out of something that isn't its business (as is commonly the case these days), but combine internal dissent with the external opposition of other nations and it may be enough to make the government back off.
It'll be much harder for the idiots in Washington to sell a 'war' against a space elevator than a war against Islamic extremists. Most Americans won't even understand the elevator, much less see the reason why we should piss off everyone and their brother trying to steal the thing. Especially, I think, after this debacle in Iraq.
All the more reason to make sure that the American government doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the elevator. Or any government for that matter, with the possible exception of a place like Canada (whom no one seems to hate).
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone who is honest and decent
Do you have cites? Empirical evidence in accredited, peer-reviewed journals to back up your claims? Or are you just spouting your personal opinion as universal truth?
You talk as if the complaints against the cartel are entirely based on "image", and nothing else. The complaints are real; they engage in oligopolistic market practices, overprice their product, use both legal and illegal methods to maintain their control over production and distribution of films, and buy legislative bodies (not just in the U.S., but in Europe as well) to pass favorable laws whenever they run into problems enforcing their hegemony.
Spin doctoring isn't going to improve the situation. The only thing that's going to improve the situation for us, the people on the shit end of this stick, is the destruction of the MPAA and the repeal of the laws that protect it. Nothing less will do.
I'm not interested in a compromise with the MPAA. The time for compromise is long past. I'll take the free market for one hundred, Alex, and to hell with the tin-pot dictators in the movie world.
Slashdot Mirror
Utter, complete bullshit. You apparently haven't read a single word written by our founding fathers, the people who drafted the Constitution. If you had, you'd know that they were almost universally opposed to the establishment of a large standing army.
You see, they had this funny idea that standing armies encouraged government to oppress the citizenry, primarily by shooting people who disagreed with it. They favored militias as an alternative not only to prevent the formation of a large standing army, but also to keep the people well-armed in case their government got out of control. If certain low-lifes in the government tried to run roughshod over the Constitution, it was expected that the citizenry would pick up their rifles, march to the state or federal capital where said low-lifes were scheming to make themselves kings, and shoot them all dead.
Our founding fathers thought that force was an excellent way to deal with nascent tyranny. Of course they had balls, whereas their descendents today are cowardly, bleating sheep so terrified of the thought of their neighbors going armed that they piss themselves just thinking about it.
Max
That doesn't really seem to matter. Just look at how effective laws have been on the 'war against drugs'. And yet, despite their abysmal failures as well as their hypocritical exceptions (e.g., alcohol) people will turn rabid and froth at the mouth in favor of passing yet more ineffective laws in this paper-tiger legislative circus of re-election politics.
Max
It seems new laws, making more things illegal will simply become another "gotcha" for folks using legitimate software.
That's the point. If there are so many laws that every citizen unknowingly violates a few every day of their lives then the government can come a-knockin' any time it pleases. Everyone becomes a criminal and everyone can be prosecuted - unless they do what the hell the jackboots tell them to do, without complaint.
This trick is very, very old.
Max
...that California is just one of fifty states, and that I don't live there. It was crazy enough when Arnie got elected governor (I was rooting for the porn star, but alas - I didn't get to vote), but you nutbags pass idiotic laws like they were going out of style.
I think I'm going to try to get the Oregon-California Border Fortification and Immigration Denial bill presented to my state legislature again....
Max
Actually, most of them want to be absolved form decision-making and responsibility altogether. Don't believe me? Teach in public schools for a couple of years and watch as the despair slowly poisons your soul.
The 'parents' of today often don't want to do any parenting at all. If their kid does something unacceptable, they'll blame everyone but themselves for how their little brat was brought up. Seems to be that the psychological maturity of most boomers arrested around the age of 14 and there they remain.
I suspect many of these people would breathe a private sight of relief if America became a dictatorship. With power over the government stripped from them, they'd always have a convenient punching bag to blame all of their personal failures on.
Max
Oregonians have always known that Californians are arrogant, crazy freaks. A whole shitload of the fuckers moved into our state in the '80's, proving beyond a doubt that all of our cherished stereotypes about Californians were not only accurate, but in fact understated. Fortunately the discovery that our dreary, rainy winters last about 9 months was good enough to drive many of them away.
One of my fervent hopes is that global warming will make the constant rain a year-round phenomenon, shaking loose the rest like fleas on a freshly-collared dog.
Max
And let's not forget the 9th and 10th amendments. There are just too many idiots these days who think that the only rights a citizen has are those spelled out in the first five amendments, and that the rest somehow 'don't count'.
The Constitution isn't a vehicle for defining rights, but the *limitations of government power*. All those yahoos who think otherwise are encouraged to actually read it sometime, especially if you're going to comment on it.
Max
Here we have the morally righteous leading the charge against hiring hackers who've engaged in criminal activities in the past because they can't ever be trusted again; and yet these same folks keep voting in Congressmen who themselves have criminal records, ranging from DUIs to bribery to racketeering to assault to spousal abuse to sexual misconduct with minors.
So I guess the message here is that you can't afford to compromise when it comes to hiring IT staff, but you don't have to be nearly as selective when voting in members of the legislative branch of your government.
This'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
(You can google the criminal records of your Congressmen rather easily on your own, so there's no need for a link - do it yourself. You may find the results enlightening. Or not. This is slashdot, after all.)
Max
Yeah, if someone shows that they are immature, you should not reward them. They won't change at all.
Then how do you explain Congress?
Max
Google turns out to be a business rather than some geek temple of unfettered knowledge. Imagine that.
Max
The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations
It was a lesson taught to us by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one we learned well.
Max
You have a right to privacy, but you don't have a right to a domain name.
We have every right not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution, and not specifically given to the government by ourselves through our legislators.
Too many people these days think that the only rights we have are those listed in the First through Fifth Amendments, or derivative rights. This isn't true. Refer to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if you think otherwise.
Max
It is not one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to people.
The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state that every power not expressly granted to the government via the Constitution belongs to the people. The government can only obtain the right to violate anonymity if we grant it to them, and under the specific cases that we allow.
Do try to remember that the government is our servant, and not our master.
Max
That makes for defacto control of a big portion of the "net".
An ever-smaller portion of the net with each passing year. So far all such laws have been abysmal failures, and that situation doesn't seem to be changing.
Max
But if no felony charges stick, then this 'charge' won't matter.
Except for the legal costs, which you'll have to pay, and the time spent in jail if you can't make bail.
Sounds to me like this is a pretty nifty way for a government body that doesn't happen to like your version of free speech to level false charges backed with ridiculous jail times as a credible threat. And if you think that the government is above such things, or that you'll somehow get justice for these acts, you've been smoking waaaaay too much crack.
Not to mention the ludicrous nature of trying to enforce U.S. laws on a world-wide system (we've seen how effective that stupidity's been so far) or the idea that spam that isn't fraud is somehow a criminal, rather than civil, offense.
Like I've said all along, just what we need! More inane laws! Soon I won't be able to take a shit without permission.
Max
Whether the argument is valid or not, it does come from a large number of people and countries, not just some liberal movement.
Almost right. It comes from a bunch of whining liberals spread all across the globe, few of whom have had their daughters raped and strangled with their own pantyhose.
Fortunately these little losers don't hold sway in the U.S.
Max
The defendant may have confessed, and performed the act in front of a nun and two priests...
I read that as "performed the act with a nun and two priests" and immediately thought "no surprise there, what with today's Catholic church...."
Max
What if you murdered someone and believe you should face the ultimate penalty for it?
Then do us all a favor and kill yourself so that we don't have the waste the time and money doing it for you.
Max
This coming from a guy who can't spell and who's got the gall to call himself 'SlayerofGods'? My, my, just who am I to believe....
Max
Brazil sounds good. They desperately want a space program, so why not?
Max
This isn't restricted to just the government bodies you mention. It's a basic truism for many federal and state bodies, and sometimes even local ones. Universities which operate with government handouts are commonly hit with this sort of 'budgeting' as well; for example, just a few weeks ago my wife was told to spend approximately $50,000 in her budget right away, or her budget next year would be cut.
Government ENCOURAGES waste. It justifies taxes, and more importantly, pork.
Max
Any venture providing access to space would most certainly have to have their payloads approved by the US government, even if the launching platform is 5000 miles out into the pacific somewhere.
Any attempt to control this by the U.S. government will be opposed by me, a U.S. citizen. There are a number of us who'd rather have an elevator than no elevator at all, and others who think that the involvement of any government in the operation of the elevator is a very bad idea.
We could fail to influence our government to butt out of something that isn't its business (as is commonly the case these days), but combine internal dissent with the external opposition of other nations and it may be enough to make the government back off.
It'll be much harder for the idiots in Washington to sell a 'war' against a space elevator than a war against Islamic extremists. Most Americans won't even understand the elevator, much less see the reason why we should piss off everyone and their brother trying to steal the thing. Especially, I think, after this debacle in Iraq.
Max
The symbolism is important.
All the more reason to make sure that the American government doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the elevator. Or any government for that matter, with the possible exception of a place like Canada (whom no one seems to hate).
Max
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone who is honest and decent
Do you have cites? Empirical evidence in accredited, peer-reviewed journals to back up your claims? Or are you just spouting your personal opinion as universal truth?
Max
The MPAA needs to address this image problem.
You talk as if the complaints against the cartel are entirely based on "image", and nothing else. The complaints are real; they engage in oligopolistic market practices, overprice their product, use both legal and illegal methods to maintain their control over production and distribution of films, and buy legislative bodies (not just in the U.S., but in Europe as well) to pass favorable laws whenever they run into problems enforcing their hegemony.
Spin doctoring isn't going to improve the situation. The only thing that's going to improve the situation for us, the people on the shit end of this stick, is the destruction of the MPAA and the repeal of the laws that protect it. Nothing less will do.
I'm not interested in a compromise with the MPAA. The time for compromise is long past. I'll take the free market for one hundred, Alex, and to hell with the tin-pot dictators in the movie world.
Max