In every state except Victoria. Maybe the rest of Australia will catch up eventually. In the UK it is legal, mostly legal in the USA.. only some states claim a "common law" against suicide, but it's not enforced. It's legal in the Netherlands.
It's illegal in Singapore, and still illegal in India, but it was recently made legal, only to be made illegal again.. and there's work going on to make it legal again.
Umm.. what part of this is hard to understand? Do you debate that the US military in Afghanistan are being used as a police force? Do you actually believe it is ever acceptable to declare martial law? I say the debate is over, but of course, irrational people can debate anything. The lesson of Vietnam was that sending a foreign military to act as a police force is doomed to failure and morally unacceptable. Maybe after another 20 years in the middle east the US people will learn that lesson again and maybe they won't forget it this time.. but I'm not going to get my hopes up.
As I said. The military is there in a police capacity. That is wrong. The debate is over and has been since Vietnam. You don't send troops to police civilians. It's not only ineffectual, it's also morally inexcusable.
Think about it. Just for a second, open your mind and think about how you would feel if troops from a super power came into your country and started policing you. For fuck sake, if you wouldn't pick up a gun and drive these bastards from your homeland then you're just a coward.
Telling someone to off themself is not "assisting".
As for the TOS, meh, you're probably right about the law, but I opposed that law when it was being used for it's intended purpose: keeping interested teenagers out of unix systems they couldn't afford.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness.
They don't.
Neither do alcohol companies have anything to do with alcohol related deaths.
Neither do car companies have anything to do with driving related deaths.
Neither do skiing companies have anything to do with skiing deaths.
What is so fucking hard to understand here? Everything has risk, if you choose to engage in an activity then it is your choice and you are responsible.
Let's totally ignore the facts of the case and go with our fictional story here, cause I care more about the fiction than I do about the facts.
I should be free to instruct anyone to do anything, at all, so long as it isn't a crime. Suicide is not a crime, and should not be a crime. Therefore I should be free to instruct someone to commit suicide. Why? Cause you're a free person. You can decide whether or not you want to commit suicide and my instruction to do so is irrelevant to your decision to do so.
I can instruct you to sell all your shit and buy a boat. If you do so, don't come back to me complaining that you don't like sailing.
It may fill me with joy to instruct you to go seek the sexual gratification of a grizzly bear, whether or not you do it is entirely your problem, not mine.
There's no army there, they're shooting at people, therefore they are shooting at civilians. It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to figure this out. Soldiers are required to question orders and refuse to follow illegal ones. They don't. Therefore they deserve scorn.
So long as we're talking about fictional laws, I think "inciting suicide" would be the appropriate charge. In many states it is illegal to commit suicide, so inciting someone to do it is "inciting to commit a crime". Of course, these states are fucked and neither commit suicide, nor inciting someone to commit suicide, should be a crime (IMHO).
WTF? She pretended to be an "internet boyfriend" and then told the girl she didn't want to talk to her anymore. She didn't put rat poison in her coffee. No-one is responsible for the death of a person who commits suicide, except the person who commits suicide. Oh, no, life is too hard. A boy I've never met (and didn't even really exist) doesn't like me anymore, where's the sleeping pills?
I'm all for the rule of law making it so the weak and the strong have equal standing in society.. but crying to the courts because someone called your daughter a name and she killed herself is just bullshit. It's just like all this sensitivity shit in the workplace and the restrictions on speech at colleges now. Grow a spine.
I can't believe assholes like Bush still exist. Vietnam motherfucker. There's no army in Afghanistan, there's no legitimate reason for the troops to be there. "Police actions" are folly.
1. If you remove someone else's name and add your own, that's plagiarism, not theft. 2. If you remove someone else's license, and the license doesn't give you permission to do that, that's copyright infringement, not theft. 3. If you add a new license and list yourself as an author, and the old license didn't give you permission to do that, that's copyright infringement, not theft. 4. If you don't enforce your copyright, that's nothing. Copyright gives you the right to sue, if you punt, that's your choice, stop moaning.
If you make the customer load up the bits, you don't have to do it in the factory.
If the manufacturers could figure out a way to make the software build the card at install time and still manage to milk the customer of money, they'd do it.
"electronic infringement is theft". From a legal perspective, I suppose that is true.
WTF?
And given that as an Open Source programmer, I depend on Copyright Law to assure that my wishes as an author are upheld, it would be hypocritical for me assume that I should be able to ignore Copyright Law just because it is inconvenient.
And given that I'm a farmer who depends on firearms to keep my chickens free of wolves, it would be hypocritical for me to assume that I should not lie down for an invading army.
Copyright Law is a power.. people need to use it ethically. Persecuting people for using their own common sense as to when it is in their interest to honour copyright is not ethical.
Grow a spine and do what serves you best and leave the author to deal with their own interests, preferably without using force.
The only problem is that firmware typically comes with a restrictive license which does not have redistribution in mind. In many cases, firmware redistribution is prohibited entirely, or the situation is, at best, ambiguous. Thus, for example, the Prism54 firmware page reads as follows:
We do not yet have a re-distribution license for [the firmware files] by Intersil (or globalspanvirata or Conexant) but since Intersil wrote the original GPL driver and then supported the Open Source community in maintaining it, we figure it's only fair we're allowed to redistribute them here. Our official permission is pending.
In today's legal climate, the "we figure it's only fair" license strikes some users as inadequate. Distributors, fearful of being sued, really need to have a license which makes their right to redistribute the firmware clear. Without that license, most of them will not ship the device firmware, and the distribution will not support the hardware in any sort of easy way. So attempts to get vendors to put their firmware under a reasonable license have been going on for years.
The situation really hasn't changed in the last 4 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving is fun.
Skiing is fun.
Alcohol is a whole hell of a lot of fun.
Cigarettes are also fun, just ask a teenager.
Your problem is that freedom and personal responsibility scares you.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think it was terrible thing to do, but people have a right to be terrible to each other.
In every state except Victoria. Maybe the rest of Australia will catch up eventually.
In the UK it is legal, mostly legal in the USA.. only some states claim a "common law" against suicide, but it's not enforced.
It's legal in the Netherlands.
It's illegal in Singapore, and still illegal in India, but it was recently made legal, only to be made illegal again.. and there's work going on to make it legal again.
Umm.. what part of this is hard to understand? Do you debate that the US military in Afghanistan are being used as a police force? Do you actually believe it is ever acceptable to declare martial law? I say the debate is over, but of course, irrational people can debate anything. The lesson of Vietnam was that sending a foreign military to act as a police force is doomed to failure and morally unacceptable. Maybe after another 20 years in the middle east the US people will learn that lesson again and maybe they won't forget it this time.. but I'm not going to get my hopes up.
As I said. The military is there in a police capacity. That is wrong. The debate is over and has been since Vietnam. You don't send troops to police civilians. It's not only ineffectual, it's also morally inexcusable.
Think about it. Just for a second, open your mind and think about how you would feel if troops from a super power came into your country and started policing you. For fuck sake, if you wouldn't pick up a gun and drive these bastards from your homeland then you're just a coward.
Telling someone to off themself is not "assisting".
As for the TOS, meh, you're probably right about the law, but I opposed that law when it was being used for it's intended purpose: keeping interested teenagers out of unix systems they couldn't afford.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness.
They don't.
Neither do alcohol companies have anything to do with alcohol related deaths.
Neither do car companies have anything to do with driving related deaths.
Neither do skiing companies have anything to do with skiing deaths.
What is so fucking hard to understand here? Everything has risk, if you choose to engage in an activity then it is your choice and you are responsible.
Let's totally ignore the facts of the case and go with our fictional story here, cause I care more about the fiction than I do about the facts.
I should be free to instruct anyone to do anything, at all, so long as it isn't a crime. Suicide is not a crime, and should not be a crime. Therefore I should be free to instruct someone to commit suicide. Why? Cause you're a free person. You can decide whether or not you want to commit suicide and my instruction to do so is irrelevant to your decision to do so.
I can instruct you to sell all your shit and buy a boat. If you do so, don't come back to me complaining that you don't like sailing.
It may fill me with joy to instruct you to go seek the sexual gratification of a grizzly bear, whether or not you do it is entirely your problem, not mine.
There's no army there, they're shooting at people, therefore they are shooting at civilians. It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to figure this out. Soldiers are required to question orders and refuse to follow illegal ones. They don't. Therefore they deserve scorn.
So long as we're talking about fictional laws, I think "inciting suicide" would be the appropriate charge. In many states it is illegal to commit suicide, so inciting someone to do it is "inciting to commit a crime". Of course, these states are fucked and neither commit suicide, nor inciting someone to commit suicide, should be a crime (IMHO).
I tell slashtards to get fucked on a daily basis but so few of them manage to do it.
What's your point?
WTF? She pretended to be an "internet boyfriend" and then told the girl she didn't want to talk to her anymore. She didn't put rat poison in her coffee. No-one is responsible for the death of a person who commits suicide, except the person who commits suicide. Oh, no, life is too hard. A boy I've never met (and didn't even really exist) doesn't like me anymore, where's the sleeping pills?
Tell me the man and I'll find you the law to imprison him.
I'm all for the rule of law making it so the weak and the strong have equal standing in society.. but crying to the courts because someone called your daughter a name and she killed herself is just bullshit. It's just like all this sensitivity shit in the workplace and the restrictions on speech at colleges now. Grow a spine.
he has every right to ask for help from people he trusts. That apparently is us.
And this is how he ended up in the military.
uhh.. how's that? If you try to fly off the map you hit an invisible wall and your ship turns around.
I can't believe assholes like Bush still exist. Vietnam motherfucker. There's no army in Afghanistan, there's no legitimate reason for the troops to be there. "Police actions" are folly.
You're a slashtard, why would I want anything from you?
They made something new from something old. I, personally, don't give a shit about the legal issues, or the ego issues.
1. If you remove someone else's name and add your own, that's plagiarism, not theft.
2. If you remove someone else's license, and the license doesn't give you permission to do that, that's copyright infringement, not theft.
3. If you add a new license and list yourself as an author, and the old license didn't give you permission to do that, that's copyright infringement, not theft.
4. If you don't enforce your copyright, that's nothing. Copyright gives you the right to sue, if you punt, that's your choice, stop moaning.
If you make the customer load up the bits, you don't have to do it in the factory.
If the manufacturers could figure out a way to make the software build the card at install time and still manage to milk the customer of money, they'd do it.
service revenues of other product lines? But thanks for making me read that insanely boring link.
"electronic infringement is theft". From a legal perspective, I suppose that is true.
WTF?
And given that as an Open Source programmer, I depend on Copyright Law to assure that my wishes as an author are upheld, it would be hypocritical for me assume that I should be able to ignore Copyright Law just because it is inconvenient.
And given that I'm a farmer who depends on firearms to keep my chickens free of wolves, it would be hypocritical for me to assume that I should not lie down for an invading army.
Copyright Law is a power.. people need to use it ethically. Persecuting people for using their own common sense as to when it is in their interest to honour copyright is not ethical.
Grow a spine and do what serves you best and leave the author to deal with their own interests, preferably without using force.
Why not have "real" physics and "unreal" propulsion technology?
Make warp engines and other "power signatures" detectable and you've got a real for people to go sub-light-speed.
says:
The only problem is that firmware typically comes with a restrictive license which does not have redistribution in mind. In many cases, firmware redistribution is prohibited entirely, or the situation is, at best, ambiguous. Thus, for example, the Prism54 firmware page reads as follows:
We do not yet have a re-distribution license for [the firmware files] by Intersil (or globalspanvirata or Conexant) but since Intersil wrote the original GPL driver and then supported the Open Source community in maintaining it, we figure it's only fair we're allowed to redistribute them here. Our official permission is pending.
In today's legal climate, the "we figure it's only fair" license strikes some users as inadequate. Distributors, fearful of being sued, really need to have a license which makes their right to redistribute the firmware clear. Without that license, most of them will not ship the device firmware, and the distribution will not support the hardware in any sort of easy way. So attempts to get vendors to put their firmware under a reasonable license have been going on for years.
The situation really hasn't changed in the last 4 years.