The article doesn't once mention shutting down hate speech sites or banning racist propaganda - or deal much with US politics, for that matter - but that doesn't stop some from getting on a First Amendment soapbox. Apparently, governments are not only forbidden from censoring certain speech, but also from discouraging certain speech. It should also be pointed out that this was an INTERNATIONAL issue; thus all the pontificating about First Amendment rights is a bit irrelevant. I'm certainly not sanctioning the banning of racist hate speech, but this is not a First Amendment issue. There is nothing wrong with a government indicating its disapproval of certain viewpoints, so long as citizens are not persecuted for their dissent. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed, as Nazi and hate groups have increasingly found in the Web a place where they can set up the terms of a debate and run with it. Yes, it's protected speech (in the US, anyway - some of my fellow countrymen forget that not all cultures stress freedom of speech above all other rights), but that doesn't make it healthy or appropriate. This poster needs to get out from behind his monitor for a bit and get a grip.
Hate to be a spoilsport, but ...
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
... many of these laws are myths. Much like the myth about the Indiana State Legislature declaring pi equal to 3. (It was proposed once to the legislature by a weird amateur mathematician, but never actually made a law.)
I think the optimism reflected in this survey is mostly a result of a booming economy. If we experience any sort of great collapse in the next few years, you can expect public attitudes about many things to change. And come on... predicting an eventual earthquake in California is like predicting the sun will rise...
After all, I know I wouldn't want to go out with any woman who took the Weekly World News seriously anyway. I'll just look for women sticking their chest out and uncomfortably suppressing all expressions of enjoyment, and know, "This, sir, is a WWN reader."
"he took an existing concept (Unix) applied it to an existing architecture (Intel x86) and released it under an existing license (GNU) he just got publcity."
You say this like it's nothing. I mean, really, it is pretty impressive when you think about how it's developed. Look, did GNU Hurd even approach the success of Linux? Nothing against RMS (who deserves such honors as well) or the fine people at GNU, certainly, but it was Linux that really started the open-source snowball rolling.
1) Yes, distributing a virus to unknowing recipients should be illegal. But shouldn't this already be covered under civil suits, electronic sabotage, etc.? I don't know the Finnish law, but it seems as though this sort of legislation should be redundant. It certainly would be here - we didn't need a new federal law to lock up Mr. Melissa. 2) Banning the _writing_ of a virus? Come on now. I bet you that the average Finnish legislator probably couldn't give you an adequate definition of what is and what is not a virus. I wrote many MS-DOS viruses in my high school days - gave a few to a VX BBS (which I regret now - I explicitly labeled them as viruses, and naively thought they would only be in the hands of the "responsible"), but most of them were just personal creations I made for the fun of it, and never distributed to anyone. Banning the writing of any computer program is simply absurd. Of course, all (or most) of us know this. But how can we communicate it to a legislature, and to the general public which elects them?
The NAACP has just as much right to buy domain names as anyone else. If George W. Bush can buy bushsucks.com, then why can't the NAACP buy racist domains? They aren't squatting if the domains are redirected to the NAACP site. This is perfectly valid. The Internet is not public property, domain names belong to whomever wants to pay for them, and the KKK, or anyone else, has no inalienable right to own.com.
My SO is a CS major, but she has grown to hate it. Fortunately, she's a math major, too, and finds that more interesting. But most of the females I have encountered have little or no interest in programming - even the CS majors. Most of them just don't seem to quite understand the appeal. I don't mean to say that women can't get involved in programming - it'd be nice to see more! - but it seems as though it's just a guy thing. More power to those few women that really do love it - if they're out there anywhere.
Hey, don't blame the entire country because of one person not knowing his history. I found his comments to be pretty silly and a little disturbing anyway. Do you really want to give governments the right to listen to you, because "you have nothing to fear if you aren't doing anything illegal?" How is this much different from the world of 1984? I don't care if it did come after an alleged IRA bombing. What if, after the Oklahoma city bombing, the government decided to start listening in on the phone lines of the entire Midwest, or anyone that had previously spouted anti-government sentiments? Northern Ireland may accept it as a "necessary evil", but I could never accept that here in the States. Times are seldom to turbulent as to necessitate such measures.
They contain digital audio, and have been around since the CEO of audio-whatever was still in diapers. If that's not "prior art", then what is? This suit is a joke.
Excuse me while I go patent the "thing". I expect royalties from everyone on the planet who uses anything, ever.
He has had more than one trip to rehab, if I recall correctly. And he is notorious for asking his bands to do things that no other independent labels would ever dream of. Virtually every band that has hit it big on Epitaph has been very, very tempted to go elsewhere, and with good reason.
To be accompanied by Microsoft News (during which all other shows are tuned out), the Microsoft "Freedom to Inundate" Hour, and, as a special bonus, Microsoft Test Pattern(TM) late at night.
All right, we all know that computer systems are hardly 100% stable. What do we do if disaster strikes, and hundreds of thousands of votes are lost? Or if the systems are hacked into?
You can talk all day about how secure the system is - I won't be convinced that it's reliable enough to completely manage something as important as the presidential election.
As I was reading this page, I suddenly, without any action on my part, got a Blue Screen of Death. (I am, unfortunately, on a Win95 machine right now.) What was the culprit? Microsoft's fat, lazy Java VM - a Java app was running in the background.
Time to trim the fat (or VFAT, perhaps?) off of M$ products.
Technology, as far as I'm concerned, is not "old" until its performance pales enough in comparison to even the lowest-end product produced at the current moment as to be worth scrapping. For 30-year-old technology, UNIX certainly has held up quite well, as it is being used for the majority of Web servers on the planet, and is more reliable than the latest NT cruft-up.
And UNIX isn't even really 30-year-old technology anyway. Comparing the latest Linux kernel, with multiprocessing support, several different supported filesystems, etc. to the early AT&T UNIX is, of course, ridiculous.
Who on earth would you sue for antitrust? There's no corporation here. There's not even one person at the helm of it all, except for Linus, and he is more a figurehead at this point than anything else. (Not that he doesn't code or anything, but he's hardly the head honcho.) This is the action of a number of hobbyists from all over the world working in their spare time. The government wouldn't stand a chance - they wouldn't even know where to start.
If they are, in fact, legally using GNU products in their software and not using Linux code, we should develop a (polite!) campaign to have them use the once-discussed "GNU Inside" logo instead of mentioning Linux.
Of course, Linux probably has a slightly higher Q rating than GNU, so that may be an uphill struggle, as the marketers want the better name recognition. But it's worth a try, I think.
This might be an, er, ambitious project, but what if someone just completely redesigned and built GTK+ in C++? Then all the KDE people might shut up and stop laughing at GTK--. (Nothing against KDE fans, it's just that I like GNOME while conceding its flaws.) After all, a wrapper is kind of pointless if you're going to have to download a new library for it anyway. Just release a new OO GTK+.
I did not choose Linux because of any similarities to communism. I chose it because it is empowering and stable, as have many corporations who certainly are NOT communist.
It's very, very irritating to hear the usual blather about communism and how those damn Reds want everyone to be equally poor, etc. ad nauseum. I don't want Bill Gates imprisoned (although I wouldn't shed a tear if he was); I want people to use software that will best fir their needs, and I am confident that Linux has grown to fit the needs of almost anyone quite well, or at least better than Microsloth's products. I choose Open Source because I simply believe it's a better way of doing things and that black box software is dangerous in an age when computers control so many aspects of our lives.
Let us debate these matters instead of engaging in ignorant parroting.
I understand where he's coming from, but I don't see how he can deem it to be important that music have a physical basis or be "limited edition". Part of the wonder of MP3s is that the problems that come with the need for physical storage of music are no longer issues. This may make it, in some odd way, less "special", but we shouldn't forget that this is ultimately about _music_. I don't care what I listen to my favorite songs on, so long as it comes through loud and clear. I find the liberation of music from matter to be a positive thing. Before the advent of recording media, music was about performers and an audience. Then Edison and his cylinder appeared, and music suddenly became property. Why must music have a physical basis? It's only sound, after all.
One of my friends told me it was for CEDAR, the document analysis/recognition research group, but I have my doubts. Perhaps they'll use it to find a remedy for Bell Hall's severe case of sick building syndrome. Ever spend a summer afternoon in there? Errrgghhhh....
(sorry, this won't make sense unless you go to SUNY Buffalo)
Slashdot Mirror
The article doesn't once mention shutting down hate speech sites or banning racist propaganda - or deal much with US politics, for that matter - but that doesn't stop some from getting on a First Amendment soapbox. Apparently, governments are not only forbidden from censoring certain speech, but also from discouraging certain speech. It should also be pointed out that this was an INTERNATIONAL issue; thus all the pontificating about First Amendment rights is a bit irrelevant. I'm certainly not sanctioning the banning of racist hate speech, but this is not a First Amendment issue. There is nothing wrong with a government indicating its disapproval of certain viewpoints, so long as citizens are not persecuted for their dissent. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed, as Nazi and hate groups have increasingly found in the Web a place where they can set up the terms of a debate and run with it. Yes, it's protected speech (in the US, anyway - some of my fellow countrymen forget that not all cultures stress freedom of speech above all other rights), but that doesn't make it healthy or appropriate. This poster needs to get out from behind his monitor for a bit and get a grip.
... many of these laws are myths. Much like the myth about the Indiana State Legislature declaring pi equal to 3. (It was proposed once to the legislature by a weird amateur mathematician, but never actually made a law.)
I think the optimism reflected in this survey is mostly a result of a booming economy. If we experience any sort of great collapse in the next few years, you can expect public attitudes about many things to change. And come on ... predicting an eventual earthquake in California is like predicting the sun will rise...
After all, I know I wouldn't want to go out with any woman who took the Weekly World News seriously anyway. I'll just look for women sticking their chest out and uncomfortably suppressing all expressions of enjoyment, and know, "This, sir, is a WWN reader."
She designed COBOL! Ecch! For this, we may forgive her someday. But not yet. ;-)
"he took an existing concept (Unix) applied it to an existing architecture (Intel x86) and released it under an existing license (GNU) he just got publcity."
You say this like it's nothing. I mean, really, it is pretty impressive when you think about how it's developed. Look, did GNU Hurd even approach the success of Linux? Nothing against RMS (who deserves such honors as well) or the fine people at GNU, certainly, but it was Linux that really started the open-source snowball rolling.
1) Yes, distributing a virus to unknowing recipients should be illegal. But shouldn't this already be covered under civil suits, electronic sabotage, etc.? I don't know the Finnish law, but it seems as though this sort of legislation should be redundant. It certainly would be here - we didn't need a new federal law to lock up Mr. Melissa. 2) Banning the _writing_ of a virus? Come on now. I bet you that the average Finnish legislator probably couldn't give you an adequate definition of what is and what is not a virus. I wrote many MS-DOS viruses in my high school days - gave a few to a VX BBS (which I regret now - I explicitly labeled them as viruses, and naively thought they would only be in the hands of the "responsible"), but most of them were just personal creations I made for the fun of it, and never distributed to anyone. Banning the writing of any computer program is simply absurd. Of course, all (or most) of us know this. But how can we communicate it to a legislature, and to the general public which elects them?
The NAACP has just as much right to buy domain names as anyone else. If George W. Bush can buy bushsucks.com, then why can't the NAACP buy racist domains? They aren't squatting if the domains are redirected to the NAACP site. This is perfectly valid. The Internet is not public property, domain names belong to whomever wants to pay for them, and the KKK, or anyone else, has no inalienable right to own .com.
My SO is a CS major, but she has grown to hate it. Fortunately, she's a math major, too, and finds that more interesting. But most of the females I have encountered have little or no interest in programming - even the CS majors. Most of them just don't seem to quite understand the appeal. I don't mean to say that women can't get involved in programming - it'd be nice to see more! - but it seems as though it's just a guy thing. More power to those few women that really do love it - if they're out there anywhere.
than reading that alleged "parody". Come on, it's not as if it was a slow week for news. This didn't warrant an entry.
Hey, don't blame the entire country because of one person not knowing his history. I found his comments to be pretty silly and a little disturbing anyway. Do you really want to give governments the right to listen to you, because "you have nothing to fear if you aren't doing anything illegal?" How is this much different from the world of 1984? I don't care if it did come after an alleged IRA bombing. What if, after the Oklahoma city bombing, the government decided to start listening in on the phone lines of the entire Midwest, or anyone that had previously spouted anti-government sentiments? Northern Ireland may accept it as a "necessary evil", but I could never accept that here in the States. Times are seldom to turbulent as to necessitate such measures.
They contain digital audio, and have been around since the CEO of audio-whatever was still in diapers. If that's not "prior art", then what is? This suit is a joke.
Excuse me while I go patent the "thing". I expect royalties from everyone on the planet who uses anything, ever.
He has had more than one trip to rehab, if I recall correctly. And he is notorious for asking his bands to do things that no other independent labels would ever dream of. Virtually every band that has hit it big on Epitaph has been very, very tempted to go elsewhere, and with good reason.
To be accompanied by Microsoft News (during which all other shows are tuned out), the Microsoft "Freedom to Inundate" Hour, and, as a special bonus, Microsoft Test Pattern(TM) late at night.
All right, we all know that computer systems are hardly 100% stable. What do we do if disaster strikes, and hundreds of thousands of votes are lost? Or if the systems are hacked into?
You can talk all day about how secure the system is - I won't be convinced that it's reliable enough to completely manage something as important as the presidential election.
As I was reading this page, I suddenly, without any action on my part, got a Blue Screen of Death. (I am, unfortunately, on a Win95 machine right now.) What was the culprit? Microsoft's fat, lazy Java VM - a Java app was running in the background.
Time to trim the fat (or VFAT, perhaps?) off of M$ products.
Bill Gates was the son of a wealthy Washington lawyer. He went from upper-middle class to upper class, not from rags to riches.
How is it possible to have bootleg copies of a freely distributable operating system?
Technology, as far as I'm concerned, is not "old" until its performance pales enough in comparison to even the lowest-end product produced at the current moment as to be worth scrapping. For 30-year-old technology, UNIX certainly has held up quite well, as it is being used for the majority of Web servers on the planet, and is more reliable than the latest NT cruft-up.
And UNIX isn't even really 30-year-old technology anyway. Comparing the latest Linux kernel, with multiprocessing support, several different supported filesystems, etc. to the early AT&T UNIX is, of course, ridiculous.
Who on earth would you sue for antitrust? There's no corporation here. There's not even one person at the helm of it all, except for Linus, and he is more a figurehead at this point than anything else. (Not that he doesn't code or anything, but he's hardly the head honcho.) This is the action of a number of hobbyists from all over the world working in their spare time. The government wouldn't stand a chance - they wouldn't even know where to start.
If they are, in fact, legally using GNU products in their software and not using Linux code, we should develop a (polite!) campaign to have them use the once-discussed "GNU Inside" logo instead of mentioning Linux.
Of course, Linux probably has a slightly higher Q rating than GNU, so that may be an uphill struggle, as the marketers want the better name recognition. But it's worth a try, I think.
This might be an, er, ambitious project, but what if someone just completely redesigned and built GTK+ in C++? Then all the KDE people might shut up and stop laughing at GTK--. (Nothing against KDE fans, it's just that I like GNOME while conceding its flaws.) After all, a wrapper is kind of pointless if you're going to have to download a new library for it anyway. Just release a new OO GTK+.
...
ugh, I hope I didn't just volunteer myself
I did not choose Linux because of any similarities to communism. I chose it because it is empowering and stable, as have many corporations who certainly are NOT communist.
It's very, very irritating to hear the usual blather about communism and how those damn Reds want everyone to be equally poor, etc. ad nauseum. I don't want Bill Gates imprisoned (although I wouldn't shed a tear if he was); I want people to use software that will best fir their needs, and I am confident that Linux has grown to fit the needs of almost anyone quite well, or at least better than Microsloth's products. I choose Open Source because I simply believe it's a better way of doing things and that black box software is dangerous in an age when computers control so many aspects of our lives.
Let us debate these matters instead of engaging in ignorant parroting.
I understand where he's coming from, but I don't see how he can deem it to be important that music have a physical basis or be "limited edition". Part of the wonder of MP3s is that the problems that come with the need for physical storage of music are no longer issues. This may make it, in some odd way, less "special", but we shouldn't forget that this is ultimately about _music_. I don't care what I listen to my favorite songs on, so long as it comes through loud and clear. I find the liberation of music from matter to be a positive thing. Before the advent of recording media, music was about performers and an audience. Then Edison and his cylinder appeared, and music suddenly became property. Why must music have a physical basis? It's only sound, after all.
One of my friends told me it was for CEDAR, the document analysis/recognition research group, but I have my doubts. Perhaps they'll use it to find a remedy for Bell Hall's severe case of sick building syndrome. Ever spend a summer afternoon in there? Errrgghhhh ....
(sorry, this won't make sense unless you go to SUNY Buffalo)