This is, in fact, a travesty of justice and good sense. This young man has done nothing illegal within the borders of this country, and yet he is imprisoned.
In matter of fact, what he's done enables Adobe to sell their products in some foreign countries that demand a method of backup for electronic data.
But no less important is the fact that the software this man has written breaks a law that should never have been allowed to exist.
That the DMCA exists at all is a poor statement on the state of personal responsibility in this country. Somehow, just because a tool exists the creator is liable for its use. That would be like suing Sears because you stripped a screw with a Craftsman screwdriver.
Let him go home. This country is becoming increasingly hostile to intelligent life. Let's reverse the trend.
You've almost got it right. It isn't just a yank law, it's a jerk-off law.
It should be obvious by now that the DMCA is a steaming pile of the worst kind. It's been manipulated by corporations to infringe upon fair use from personal CD's to Libraries.
And as far as law enforcement: the law hasn't managed to grasp the concept that they have laws in other places that they deal with. It used to be that a local cop only had to worry about what the rules were in his town or municipality, but communication now crosses all boarders, and thought crimes are hard to pin to a geographic location...
As someone involved in the spam blocking industry (yes it's an industry) I'd have to say that overall the effectiveness of rbl's in general is minimal.
The impact has been just enough to get MAPS sued a couple of times. Expensive lawsuits. This is probably a bigger problem than a lack of subscriptions.
The fact is that it's cheaper to buy a mail gateway filter now than to subscribe to MAPS.
Consider this the first step in the eventual closing. They're going to hang on as long as they can to finish out the subscriptions and contracts they have, in order to avoid litigation for breach of contract, and then most likely fold up and go away.
"It is recognized by most of the scientific community that humans are accelerating the trend of global warming."
Exactly how many is most? Where did you get this data from, because I haven't heard anything like it outside of the daily news and the National enquirer.
"Accelerating?" How much? The only numbers I've seen have been very cautiously released by NASA, and are laughably small.
And your analogy is kind of weak. Spinning a bottle on end, when it works, is a coincidence of inertia, momentum, and balance. It's inherently unstable, and therefore easy to disrupt. On the other hand, the ecology of the Earth as a whole is probably the most stable sysem we can directly experience, having survived earthquakes, volcanoes, and a great big HONKING asteroid slamming into us from deep space.
There is no actual data showing anything other than the fact that since we started taking measurements the levels of greenhouse gasses have gone up. The fossil record is notoriously vague on this subject.
Don't get me wrong: This is not something that can be left unchecked. On the other hand, I don't think there's any need to panic. The situation needs to be dealt with like every other crisis. When the streets were filled with offal we invented plumbing. When farmland was played out we invented crop rotation.
Please keep in mind that reading a radar isn't as easy as they make it look on tv. There are a lot of factors, including terrain and radar "ghosts" that have to be taken into account.
What can you say and what do you want to say? These are two separate issues, and you're obviously pro-censorship on children since you want to apply it on your own offspring. So you're really ambigous here. You can't be against censorship in one moment, and stamp down "unapproved" speech in the next.
Let's be realistic. There are societal norms that have to be observed. Freedom of speach doesn't mean you have the right to be rude or abusive, so one of the things children need to be taught is that while they have the right to say "bad" words, there are inappropriate times.
This is a survival lesson. If they focus on their "right" to say things to the exclusion of when and where it's a good time, then while they're shouting about how it's their right to call somebody suburban white trash they'll be getting their civil rights violated by a broken beer bottle.
Children need to learn these things, if only so that they know the kind of reactions words and actions will generate.
Final words on the subject. Recently there was a police incident near the home of a friend. During the clean up and the report my friends son began to taunt an officer, being insulting etc. The boy was 17, btw. The officer told my friend to control her son, which she responded to by telling the officer that he'd best look the other way.
He threatened to take her to jail if she touched the boy.
The kid didn't know that what he was doing would get him in trouble, because he was just talking, and he has the right to say whatever he wants. But his mother couldn't correct him, either.
Would she have been restricting his rights, or teaching him a valuable lesson?
Slashdot Mirror
This is, in fact, a travesty of justice and good sense. This young man has done nothing illegal within the borders of this country, and yet he is imprisoned.
In matter of fact, what he's done enables Adobe to sell their products in some foreign countries that demand a method of backup for electronic data.
But no less important is the fact that the software this man has written breaks a law that should never have been allowed to exist.
That the DMCA exists at all is a poor statement on the state of personal responsibility in this country. Somehow, just because a tool exists the creator is liable for its use. That would be like suing Sears because you stripped a screw with a Craftsman screwdriver.
Let him go home. This country is becoming increasingly hostile to intelligent life. Let's reverse the trend.
THAT'S the word I was looking for!
You've almost got it right. It isn't just a yank law, it's a jerk-off law.
It should be obvious by now that the DMCA is a steaming pile of the worst kind. It's been manipulated by corporations to infringe upon fair use from personal CD's to Libraries.
And as far as law enforcement: the law hasn't managed to grasp the concept that they have laws in other places that they deal with. It used to be that a local cop only had to worry about what the rules were in his town or municipality, but communication now crosses all boarders, and thought crimes are hard to pin to a geographic location...
As someone involved in the spam blocking industry (yes it's an industry) I'd have to say that overall the effectiveness of rbl's in general is minimal.
The impact has been just enough to get MAPS sued a couple of times. Expensive lawsuits. This is probably a bigger problem than a lack of subscriptions.
The fact is that it's cheaper to buy a mail gateway filter now than to subscribe to MAPS.
Consider this the first step in the eventual closing. They're going to hang on as long as they can to finish out the subscriptions and contracts they have, in order to avoid litigation for breach of contract, and then most likely fold up and go away.
"It is recognized by most of the scientific community that humans are accelerating the trend of global warming."
Exactly how many is most? Where did you get this data from, because I haven't heard anything like it outside of the daily news and the National enquirer.
"Accelerating?" How much? The only numbers I've seen have been very cautiously released by NASA, and are laughably small.
And your analogy is kind of weak. Spinning a bottle on end, when it works, is a coincidence of inertia, momentum, and balance. It's inherently unstable, and therefore easy to disrupt. On the other hand, the ecology of the Earth as a whole is probably the most stable sysem we can directly experience, having survived earthquakes, volcanoes, and a great big HONKING asteroid slamming into us from deep space.
There is no actual data showing anything other than the fact that since we started taking measurements the levels of greenhouse gasses have gone up. The fossil record is notoriously vague on this subject.
Don't get me wrong: This is not something that can be left unchecked. On the other hand, I don't think there's any need to panic. The situation needs to be dealt with like every other crisis. When the streets were filled with offal we invented plumbing. When farmland was played out we invented crop rotation.
Let's just keep our heads.
Please keep in mind that reading a radar isn't as easy as they make it look on tv. There are a lot of factors, including terrain and radar "ghosts" that have to be taken into account.
What can you say and what do you want to say? These are two separate issues, and you're obviously pro-censorship on children since you want to apply it on your own offspring. So you're really ambigous here. You can't be against censorship in one moment, and stamp down "unapproved" speech in the next. Let's be realistic. There are societal norms that have to be observed. Freedom of speach doesn't mean you have the right to be rude or abusive, so one of the things children need to be taught is that while they have the right to say "bad" words, there are inappropriate times. This is a survival lesson. If they focus on their "right" to say things to the exclusion of when and where it's a good time, then while they're shouting about how it's their right to call somebody suburban white trash they'll be getting their civil rights violated by a broken beer bottle. Children need to learn these things, if only so that they know the kind of reactions words and actions will generate. Final words on the subject. Recently there was a police incident near the home of a friend. During the clean up and the report my friends son began to taunt an officer, being insulting etc. The boy was 17, btw. The officer told my friend to control her son, which she responded to by telling the officer that he'd best look the other way. He threatened to take her to jail if she touched the boy. The kid didn't know that what he was doing would get him in trouble, because he was just talking, and he has the right to say whatever he wants. But his mother couldn't correct him, either. Would she have been restricting his rights, or teaching him a valuable lesson?