i'm not saying it should be forced on anyone. hell, i don't even think we should have a "pledge of allegiance". the basics of that are just part of being an american. Forcing patriotism is the part that violates the first amendment, not just the pledge itself. And i apologise for my misnumbering...i know very well it's the first amenment. i just am sleep deprived and distracted by allergies at the moment. The gist of what i was trying to get across is that atheism is niether prohibited nor supported, and as such, denying god is just as bad as acknowledging a greater power from a first amendment standpoint. The pledge at this point (due to nearly fifty years of existence post modification) cannot be one way or the other without pissing people off. I say the government should cast it off and leave it to the Boy Scouts, and just declare that the whole thing isn't an important enough issue to bother with, rather than setting bad precedents which will inevitably be used in court to strike out at actual religious things (oooh, that christian church's cross being there offends me! i shouldn't have to see that walking past their building, or some other such crap). I guess i wasn't very clear the first time.
but the constitution was formed by christians for christians. Those who colonized the American east were one of two things: deported criminals, or christians who wanted to worship in their fashions without a state controlled religion (i.e. roman catholic, anglican) telling them what they had to do to be good christian people. Enter the constitution, created by a group of largely if not solely christian men upon christian beliefs, intending to insure that their right to worship in their own beliefs rather than what they were told to.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
this is what the bill of rights says concerning religion, that congress shall make no law RESPECTING (in the language of the day: concerning, not the modern "to have respect for") an establishment of religion. So yes, this makes it illegal for the government force people to believe one thing or another, or to do something for someone else's religious beliefs rather than your own. However, this does not show reason to ignore or attack religion or holy acknowledgement of God (mind you, the term "god" can be applied to any god, not just the christian god in which I believe. Even the muslim term Allah is just their word for God, IIRC). While Congress may not make a law concerning an establishment of religion, the constitution flagrantly acknowledges, like it or not, that the United States as a country is to acknowledge that there is a greater omnipotent power in some way shape or form. Like it or not, Atheism is not protected by the second amendment, but is also not prohibited by it either. While you're not required to adhere to a religious standard beyond which law dictates (i.e. coincidencees such as murder being illegal by law coinciding with murder being prohibited by many religions), you're not protected from the fact that the government is not in fact an atheist, but is in fact formed in the likeness of a giant, multi-person Christian who has over time become mostly an agnostic in denial.
i agree wholeheartedly. if Lucas were to instead embrace this development and willingly distribute it on newly pressed SCUMM engine games, or even a cool variety pack, i'd buy it in a second. I fondly remember hours of Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion, the Indiana Jones and Monkey Island series, but alas my brother was the owner of them. As a linux gamer, if they were to make a "scumm collection box set" with ScummVM, i'd buy it in a second for the chance to have them back and useable. But alas, here goes lucas screwing it up in the name of capitalism...lets hope they figure out what they're really attacking before it gets out of hand.
As much as I hate to be unpleasant to anyone who is running any Linux where they work, you have a real defeatist attitude. you imply that these developers want to be paid in cashmoneychecks. Not necessarily true. I know I for one would not enjoy coding for somebody else to their specifications. My projects are strictly things that I want to have, and choose to release them for others to use, since, as Linus did when he released Linux to the public, I figure that if i'm going to make it for my own useful purpose, someone else might find it useful too. Granted, there may be others who would want to be paid to do this, but I think you are too stuck in the mindset of "only corporations and companies can produce useable software" to realize that many open source coders do it out of personal necessity, not desire for concrete payment.
yes...but what do you then intend to call the "fair use" contingent? The difference is that these so-called "pirates" and people who are merely using their fair use are being forcefed the same label. Black hat and white hat hackers, and even coders, are "hackers" by definition, while so many people operating within the bounds of the law are wrongly being labelled and demonized as "pirates".
Answer: it was never piracy. Nothing is actually taken. it's copyright violation. The idea of "theft" or "stealing" is incorrectly labelling the act. Anything other than:
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
is a blatant misnomer which has become popularized to demonize fair use by labelling all copying of content including that protected/allowed by law. What actual "piracy" that goes on is simple copyright infringement, not piracy. People need to get their terminology straight. This is how the term "hacker" became demonized by the media, too.
is that it enables people to hear more than the one or two good songs on the album that get radio play without purchasing the entire CD to find that it sucks. I remember before P2P I'd occasionally hear songs on the radio and visit a friend who had the CD (i never had the money in those days to buy them, so i listened at my friends' houses, not burning or taping them as the record companies would have you think). And I seem to recall more often than I care to having liked one song that got radio play and not liking the rest of the CD. This P2P issue is the same. If people can hear the songs before buying (like you can with almost any other media, i.e. seeing a movie on free HBO or in the theater before buying it), and you only have one good song on an album, this is what happens. Sorry to be redundant, but moby, your latest isn't your greatest. I'll put my money somewhere else. (and no, I don't have Moby MP3s or even any P2P software, either)
I use linux. I don't need anything better than my Duron 900 anyway. If it won't run linux and whatever other software i want, i simply won't purchase new hardware with this system in place. It's BS like this that make it ever more likely that I will move to a different country.
i liked older moby. i own those CDs. I listened to some of his newer stuff, then didn't really like it and got rid of the cds. The reason his current cd isn't selling well is because it's not very good, not because it's being pirated. That's a lame, scapegoating approach, moby. Go back to your old electronica stylings, and maybe your sales will pick up again.
I'm not talking "new amendments". I'm talking de-cruftifying the old code. Version 2.0. Not so much a full rewrite as a reinstall of the OS. For example, if you have a Win98 box, and you run it for 4 years without reinstalling windows but install and uninstall various software over the years, it turns to shit. however, if you reinstall win98 (or perhaps something better, like Linux) you don't have as many remnants of the crappy, deteriorated removed software you did beforehand, and only have to reinstall what you actually need. What I honestly want isn't military revolution if it can be avoided. What I want is for lawmakers to look at every bit of legislation and every court precedent and remove redundancies, powers that are abused, irrelevancies, laws with no rhyme or reason in today's society, and anything that goes against anything in the spirit of the constitution, not just anything that doesn't quite break the letter of it. The founding fathers of this country would be appalled at the state of freedom in this country, especially related to the concept of Intellectual Property and, if they were taught about modern communications systems, in free flow of information. Their intent in providing copyright to creators has been mangled, twisted, and stretched so horribly that I honestly don't see why it's been tolerated for so long.
meanwhile, the the NSA and CIA are investigating whether any asteroid flight simulators were sold to anyone of Muslim faith in the past couple of years...
even as much as three years ago when I did my first major Pentium II upgrade for my home PC (full replacement of a 486DX2 system...woohoo!) I selected my components from a local OEM shop and had intended to build it myself. However, I was offered a discount of roughly $200 to let them put the thing together and give me support and warranty for a year or something like that. So I let them...I figured why not.
IIRC, the USS Vincennes incident was more dependent upon human than computer error. That, and the fact that if you're in an enemy-controlled militarized zone, there are certain risks you take. Accidents can happen with code, but so can operator error. War casualties are a different matter. If I were on a warship, i'd rather take out a possible threat than risk it.
why not use the same technology to mass produce a recordable 5 1/4 inch (or so) media that I can do my backups on without having to break my archives into a series of CD's? If they mass produce it quickly and make it inexpensive enough, the proliferation will give them a huge jump on their market share. Still, if they want my business, it'll have to run in Linux...
Re:Thats MORE True With Development Environments
on
Version Fatigue
·
· Score: 1
That's called "abuse of monopoly", at this point...
See, the thing is, according to their oath that they all take, the US military should have revolted against the government decades ago. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the current regime or "US Foreign Policy". The constitution has been increasingly subjected to bastardizing and degradation at the hands of politicians, getting worse with every succession of each Congressman and Senator's term. However, since the military brass can't technically get another star to improve from Brigadier General to Major General and such without Congressional approval, it'll never happen...
The biggest problem with paying for anonymizers is that as soon as they have your name and address from you paying for it, suddenly you're not anonymous anymore...there goes the whole point.
it's still a game console. there's nothing to be gained from hacking the living crap out of someone's game console. You're not going to find secrets or confidential data, and you're not going to DoS a ton of people by knocking out a game console. There are more important things for MS's security teams to work on.
The internet is a medium for sharing information. It was created for military and later for educational sharing of data and other information. Commercialization of the internet and copyrighted content is nothing but a bastardization of it. Simple truth: The internet is a giant collection of stacks of papers. If you grab a copy of one, no big deal. It was provided without cost anyway. As long as you don't claim that you own it or that you created it if you didn't, there's nothing wrong with it. After all, facts cannot be copyrighted. If someone creates an archive of the internet and makes it available freely, I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to object without a flagrantly correct reason why not (i.e. you indexed my passworded site, you publicly published my email that I didn't make public, etc.) but when you make something freely available to the public over the internet, you have no justification for complaining if someone passes it around in its original form (or an unmodified text doc of it, if it's something that can be distributed in that manner,,for that matter.)
The point is that a major company is vending computers (aside from those in China with Red Flag) with a Linux variant preinstalled for the masses. Even if people say, 'screw this lindows shit" and install Windows, the name is getting out there. Five years ago I didn't know a thing about AMD, but now I run a Duron in my main box. You don't start at the top.
That doesn't matter. They can use whatever OS they damn well please...and they choose Linux. I don't care what their Ideology is, the fact that a huge disgusting conglomerate with no morals or scruples has decided that Linux is better for what they do. Therefore, other companies may see this and follow suit. THAT is the point.
one thing that needs to be focused on is that MP3 and video aren't the only large files people download these days. I download linux distros, and live in the country. 28.8. not illegal. That would be a very legitimate use of this service, no? then I could actually try out gentoo...
There is a light at the end of the tunnel, believe it or not, and it's Bill Gates. Microsoft suspended coding for two months to seminar on bugs and how to fix them
Does this sound like hidden Microsoft propaganda to anyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of fscking imbecile allows critical infrastructure control systems to be connected to the Internet?"
Trick question. Imbecilles don't fsck.
i'm not saying it should be forced on anyone. hell, i don't even think we should have a "pledge of allegiance". the basics of that are just part of being an american. Forcing patriotism is the part that violates the first amendment, not just the pledge itself. And i apologise for my misnumbering...i know very well it's the first amenment. i just am sleep deprived and distracted by allergies at the moment. The gist of what i was trying to get across is that atheism is niether prohibited nor supported, and as such, denying god is just as bad as acknowledging a greater power from a first amendment standpoint. The pledge at this point (due to nearly fifty years of existence post modification) cannot be one way or the other without pissing people off. I say the government should cast it off and leave it to the Boy Scouts, and just declare that the whole thing isn't an important enough issue to bother with, rather than setting bad precedents which will inevitably be used in court to strike out at actual religious things (oooh, that christian church's cross being there offends me! i shouldn't have to see that walking past their building, or some other such crap). I guess i wasn't very clear the first time.
but the constitution was formed by christians for christians. Those who colonized the American east were one of two things: deported criminals, or christians who wanted to worship in their fashions without a state controlled religion (i.e. roman catholic, anglican) telling them what they had to do to be good christian people. Enter the constitution, created by a group of largely if not solely christian men upon christian beliefs, intending to insure that their right to worship in their own beliefs rather than what they were told to.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
this is what the bill of rights says concerning religion, that congress shall make no law RESPECTING (in the language of the day: concerning, not the modern "to have respect for") an establishment of religion. So yes, this makes it illegal for the government force people to believe one thing or another, or to do something for someone else's religious beliefs rather than your own. However, this does not show reason to ignore or attack religion or holy acknowledgement of God (mind you, the term "god" can be applied to any god, not just the christian god in which I believe. Even the muslim term Allah is just their word for God, IIRC). While Congress may not make a law concerning an establishment of religion, the constitution flagrantly acknowledges, like it or not, that the United States as a country is to acknowledge that there is a greater omnipotent power in some way shape or form. Like it or not, Atheism is not protected by the second amendment, but is also not prohibited by it either. While you're not required to adhere to a religious standard beyond which law dictates (i.e. coincidencees such as murder being illegal by law coinciding with murder being prohibited by many religions), you're not protected from the fact that the government is not in fact an atheist, but is in fact formed in the likeness of a giant, multi-person Christian who has over time become mostly an agnostic in denial.
i agree wholeheartedly. if Lucas were to instead embrace this development and willingly distribute it on newly pressed SCUMM engine games, or even a cool variety pack, i'd buy it in a second. I fondly remember hours of Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion, the Indiana Jones and Monkey Island series, but alas my brother was the owner of them. As a linux gamer, if they were to make a "scumm collection box set" with ScummVM, i'd buy it in a second for the chance to have them back and useable. But alas, here goes lucas screwing it up in the name of capitalism...lets hope they figure out what they're really attacking before it gets out of hand.
As much as I hate to be unpleasant to anyone who is running any Linux where they work, you have a real defeatist attitude. you imply that these developers want to be paid in cashmoneychecks. Not necessarily true. I know I for one would not enjoy coding for somebody else to their specifications. My projects are strictly things that I want to have, and choose to release them for others to use, since, as Linus did when he released Linux to the public, I figure that if i'm going to make it for my own useful purpose, someone else might find it useful too. Granted, there may be others who would want to be paid to do this, but I think you are too stuck in the mindset of "only corporations and companies can produce useable software" to realize that many open source coders do it out of personal necessity, not desire for concrete payment.
now when i get a bad burn, i can make it into an even more decorative coaster than I would have before! thanks, martha stewart!
yes...but what do you then intend to call the "fair use" contingent? The difference is that these so-called "pirates" and people who are merely using their fair use are being forcefed the same label. Black hat and white hat hackers, and even coders, are "hackers" by definition, while so many people operating within the bounds of the law are wrongly being labelled and demonized as "pirates".
Answer: it was never piracy. Nothing is actually taken. it's copyright violation. The idea of "theft" or "stealing" is incorrectly labelling the act. Anything other than:
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
is a blatant misnomer which has become popularized to demonize fair use by labelling all copying of content including that protected/allowed by law. What actual "piracy" that goes on is simple copyright infringement, not piracy. People need to get their terminology straight. This is how the term "hacker" became demonized by the media, too.
is that it enables people to hear more than the one or two good songs on the album that get radio play without purchasing the entire CD to find that it sucks. I remember before P2P I'd occasionally hear songs on the radio and visit a friend who had the CD (i never had the money in those days to buy them, so i listened at my friends' houses, not burning or taping them as the record companies would have you think). And I seem to recall more often than I care to having liked one song that got radio play and not liking the rest of the CD. This P2P issue is the same. If people can hear the songs before buying (like you can with almost any other media, i.e. seeing a movie on free HBO or in the theater before buying it), and you only have one good song on an album, this is what happens. Sorry to be redundant, but moby, your latest isn't your greatest. I'll put my money somewhere else. (and no, I don't have Moby MP3s or even any P2P software, either)
I use linux. I don't need anything better than my Duron 900 anyway. If it won't run linux and whatever other software i want, i simply won't purchase new hardware with this system in place. It's BS like this that make it ever more likely that I will move to a different country.
i liked older moby. i own those CDs. I listened to some of his newer stuff, then didn't really like it and got rid of the cds. The reason his current cd isn't selling well is because it's not very good, not because it's being pirated. That's a lame, scapegoating approach, moby. Go back to your old electronica stylings, and maybe your sales will pick up again.
I'm not talking "new amendments". I'm talking de-cruftifying the old code. Version 2.0. Not so much a full rewrite as a reinstall of the OS. For example, if you have a Win98 box, and you run it for 4 years without reinstalling windows but install and uninstall various software over the years, it turns to shit. however, if you reinstall win98 (or perhaps something better, like Linux) you don't have as many remnants of the crappy, deteriorated removed software you did beforehand, and only have to reinstall what you actually need. What I honestly want isn't military revolution if it can be avoided. What I want is for lawmakers to look at every bit of legislation and every court precedent and remove redundancies, powers that are abused, irrelevancies, laws with no rhyme or reason in today's society, and anything that goes against anything in the spirit of the constitution, not just anything that doesn't quite break the letter of it. The founding fathers of this country would be appalled at the state of freedom in this country, especially related to the concept of Intellectual Property and, if they were taught about modern communications systems, in free flow of information. Their intent in providing copyright to creators has been mangled, twisted, and stretched so horribly that I honestly don't see why it's been tolerated for so long.
meanwhile, the the NSA and CIA are investigating whether any asteroid flight simulators were sold to anyone of Muslim faith in the past couple of years...
even as much as three years ago when I did my first major Pentium II upgrade for my home PC (full replacement of a 486DX2 system...woohoo!) I selected my components from a local OEM shop and had intended to build it myself. However, I was offered a discount of roughly $200 to let them put the thing together and give me support and warranty for a year or something like that. So I let them...I figured why not.
IIRC, the USS Vincennes incident was more dependent upon human than computer error. That, and the fact that if you're in an enemy-controlled militarized zone, there are certain risks you take. Accidents can happen with code, but so can operator error. War casualties are a different matter. If I were on a warship, i'd rather take out a possible threat than risk it.
why not use the same technology to mass produce a recordable 5 1/4 inch (or so) media that I can do my backups on without having to break my archives into a series of CD's? If they mass produce it quickly and make it inexpensive enough, the proliferation will give them a huge jump on their market share. Still, if they want my business, it'll have to run in Linux...
That's called "abuse of monopoly", at this point...
See, the thing is, according to their oath that they all take, the US military should have revolted against the government decades ago. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the current regime or "US Foreign Policy". The constitution has been increasingly subjected to bastardizing and degradation at the hands of politicians, getting worse with every succession of each Congressman and Senator's term. However, since the military brass can't technically get another star to improve from Brigadier General to Major General and such without Congressional approval, it'll never happen...
The biggest problem with paying for anonymizers is that as soon as they have your name and address from you paying for it, suddenly you're not anonymous anymore...there goes the whole point.
it's still a game console. there's nothing to be gained from hacking the living crap out of someone's game console. You're not going to find secrets or confidential data, and you're not going to DoS a ton of people by knocking out a game console. There are more important things for MS's security teams to work on.
The internet is a medium for sharing information. It was created for military and later for educational sharing of data and other information. Commercialization of the internet and copyrighted content is nothing but a bastardization of it. Simple truth: The internet is a giant collection of stacks of papers. If you grab a copy of one, no big deal. It was provided without cost anyway. As long as you don't claim that you own it or that you created it if you didn't, there's nothing wrong with it. After all, facts cannot be copyrighted. If someone creates an archive of the internet and makes it available freely, I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to object without a flagrantly correct reason why not (i.e. you indexed my passworded site, you publicly published my email that I didn't make public, etc.) but when you make something freely available to the public over the internet, you have no justification for complaining if someone passes it around in its original form (or an unmodified text doc of it, if it's something that can be distributed in that manner, ,for that matter.)
The point is that a major company is vending computers (aside from those in China with Red Flag) with a Linux variant preinstalled for the masses. Even if people say, 'screw this lindows shit" and install Windows, the name is getting out there. Five years ago I didn't know a thing about AMD, but now I run a Duron in my main box. You don't start at the top.
That doesn't matter. They can use whatever OS they damn well please...and they choose Linux. I don't care what their Ideology is, the fact that a huge disgusting conglomerate with no morals or scruples has decided that Linux is better for what they do. Therefore, other companies may see this and follow suit. THAT is the point.
one thing that needs to be focused on is that MP3 and video aren't the only large files people download these days. I download linux distros, and live in the country. 28.8. not illegal. That would be a very legitimate use of this service, no? then I could actually try out gentoo...
There is a light at the end of the tunnel, believe it or not, and it's Bill Gates. Microsoft suspended coding for two months to seminar on bugs and how to fix them
Does this sound like hidden Microsoft propaganda to anyone else?