Actually the burden of proof is on your to prove that it is NOT free speech. Videos of people having sexual intercourse is no different than videos of a gentleman verbally attacking the president. Freedom of speech doesn't mean just saying things verbally. It is the freedom to express yourself without the intervention of the government. Obviously there are limits. Your freedom of speech doesn't override other people's freedoms (can't scream outside a neighbors house in the middle of the night) and can't cause harm to others (shouting fire in packed theatre). Pornography does neither of these things.
It is a major problem especially considering porn turns women into sex objects
Explain to me how porn turns women into sex objects and not men? I know both men and women who view porn both individually and as a couple. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support what you say. You can't just condemn something because of your religous beliefs.
porn is a problem, and I don't care what anyone says.
See that is the problem. You don't care what anybody has to say. It is you who has mad up your mind and it is you that is getting mad, dismissing our arguments outright and prentending that it isn't normal.
Did you stop and think that perhaps your friend was only attracted to young girls (thus the FBI bust) and that was why he couldn't get off with normal sex? I mean I have looked at porn for decades now and real sex is still better.
I know you are a troll but I would like to address your assumption. Anything you do on your computer (or in your house) to block another person's speech will never violate a person's freedom of speech. People have the right to speak but not to make you listen.
A law that requires a filter on the internet, however, would be a violation of freedom of speech (and is pretty much what is happening in China). Laws to compensate for bad parenting should never exist. I personally believe there should be no minimum drinking age either (and surely not 21 either way).
God forbid that children get the idea that sex can be an enjoyable experience and that sex outside of the missionary position is acceptable. Porn saves many relationships because it gives couples new ideas. Not all porn is John Hugecock and Jane Boobjob having violent sex with a plunger up her ass. There is plenty of porn that is designed for couples.
Either way, if a guy is treating his girlfriend like a porn star than perhaps he has other respect issues that need to be dealt with. While porn will not cause a man to be disrepectful it may make it worse.
Especially since I don't know many guys who weren't already sneaking porn by the time they were in their early teens. I can't find any statistics on it but I would have to guess that a majority of men had viewed porn before the age of 18 and turned out to actually be decent upstanding adults. I personally can't even remember the first porn magazine I looked at and I have only had sex in serious relationships and have never even come close to sexual assaulting anyone. I have nothing but the highest respect for women.
In order to be a corporation in the US you only need to incorporate in one state (Delaware being very popular for tax reasons). In order to qualify for tax exempt status (which is what they mean by federal recognition - the IRS) you have to qualify under 501(c).
Non-profit and not-for-profit can be used interchangeably. You will rarely hear any accountant refer to a company as non-profit. Not-for-profit is the current "politically correct" term.
In order for a not-for-profit to receive tax exemption it has to qualify under the IRS codes section 501(c). The most common being 501(c)(3) for charitable organizations.
I have a music degree (amongst others). One part of learning music was understanding the science behind music. What makes consonance and dissonance, the difference between well-tempered and equal tempered, etc. I studied hundreds of different works to recognize the formulas that recurred through different styles (3rd movement is a waltz).
Knowing all of that helped me understand music better and perhaps made me a better composer and performer but I still pretty much suck compared to the greats. Oddly enough, most of the greats got by with little more than cursory knowledge of music (see Charlie Parker).
My point is that cooking is very similar. Knowing the science behind it isn't going to turn you into Jacques Pepin anymore than music science turned me into Gerry Mulligan but it can make us amateurs just a little bit better.
As has been said a million times it will be hard to convict somebody for spamming but it is a lot easier to get identity theft and good old fashioned fraud to stick.
Actually - Hannaford (only in the Northeast) has a really great produce section. I am not sure how much of it is local and how much is not but they come the closest to a farmer's market I have seen.
Funny. I actually made a similar comment to a post above. Farmer's market produce is often fresher and cheaper and you are supporting local farmers. Most people really don't care, though. Grocery stores are convenient "one-stop" Megalomarts.
I posted around the same time as you and had the same concern but according to the article they do pick the best and freshest for exactly your point. If they didn't then they wouldn't stay in business. Any new business really has to be extraordinary to compete. A new grocery store opened in my town and has to compete with two others. There produce sucked. They had no butchers on staff and the store is always empty. Now another store is supposed to come in but they are famous for their fresh and locally grown fruit. I know they will do well.
I live outside of a major city but too far to get this right now but even when I lived in the city my biggest problem with the idea was stuff like produce. I love cooking and I am very picky about my fruit and veggies and cuts of meat. According to the article, however, this seems to also be a big concern of the companies. They even claim that they would do a better job. I would have to see that.
I actually enjoy grocery shopping sometimes (ok call me a freak) but I would to pull up a recipe and have the ingredients delivered.
Xerox and Kleenex are not "on the verge" of losing their trademarks. There is no other company that uses the words Kleenex or Xerox in their product and Kleenex clearly states on the box - Kleenex brand tissue. If on the box it said Kleenex brand Kleenexes then they would have a problem.
Under trademark law a company cannot selectively sue people for using their trademark without permission. If Kleenex let Puffs call their tissues Kleenexes instead of tissues but then sued another company for the same thing they would lose. The company must also be careful to only refer to their trademark as an adjective and not a noun. Kleenex brand tissues, Xerox brand copiers.
Either way the point is moot. The family does not hold a trademark on Googol for any use (but other people do).
No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are plenty of good reasons to keep IP. Copyrights are fine as long as they have a finite term. Unfortunately, that term seems to be getting less and less finite. You have to remember that writing a book can take years of hard work and research. The author deserves some compensation for his work (and most definitely credit at the least).
Patents follow the same line as copyrights. As long as they are for real inventions and have a reasonable finite term (which they do). Software patents are the evil here. A patent on clicking a button to shop doesn't seem very inventive to me.
Trademarks really are the least evil of the bunch. Trademarks protect companies by making sure that the goodwill associated with their name is not take advantage of by a knockoff. For the consumer it is good because you know that when you buy a Coca-Cola you are getting a soda made by the Coca-Cola company.
Without IP laws, companies would be forced to keep everything very tightly secret and secure so as to maintain their competitive advantage. And your point is moot. Patents do not prevent a competitor from building a better version of your product. Most patents issued are improvements on previous patents.
Forget Matsushita. Their tradermark is on digital cameras. Dataflow Services, Inc on the other hand has a trademark on it for "installation of computer networks". That one sounds a whole hell of a lot closer to what they did.
Of course, this is only an issue if they decide to use the name of the distribution in commerce. Since it is just a custom distro for this library I don't think that will be an issue.
Most states have some sort of registration, licensing or education requirements for handguns.
I have never met a well adapted adult who was completely ignored by their parents. I also think that trying too hard is dangerous. There is a middle ground that seems to be the most successful.
And I am not saying that the license teaches you how to be a good parent or even guarantees you will be a good parent anymore than a drivers license makes you a good driver. It does insure that you have at least a minimal amount of knowledge is raising children - how they should sleep (on their back or on their front), what they should eat, how they should interact with pets, etc.
You can't tell me that it is absurd that you can't drive unless you know how to parallel park but you bring a new life into this world not knowing that you shouldn't leave them in the car while you run into the mall.
Dear god I hope you are kidding. A simple majority is hardly the way to decide something as serious as this. You would start race riots. You'd have to set the limit at least to 75% or better. At least then the minorities would have a chance.
Therefore we test people to make sure they're good parents
While I agree that there should be a license to have children (we have them for driving, fishing, and gun ownership) how would you be able to test whether somebody would be a good parent. Would you be automatically skewing things towards the wealthy? Would there be Kaplan Test prep for it? How do you quantify laziness or stupidity? Remember that IQ tests are worthless. I know people with 150+ IQs that I wouldn't trust with a cat.
How about another vote? Who wants religious fanatics in the future?
This is another one you don't want a vote on. It's not just fanatics. A very large part of our country is very religous and are against genetic engineering of any type. Why do you think there is even a question of making abortion or cloning illegal? A country that wasn't overrun by religous fervor wouldn't even hesitate at keeping them legal.
Just so you know - I am not against weeding out some of the chaff in this country but I know that it is a real uphill battle.
Something like Sickel-Cell anemia is a single-gene disorder but my understanding is that most common diseases (like Cancer, Heart Disease, etc.) are multi-gene disorders that are much harder to detect.
The first problem would be who decides what is an undesirable trait? Is dark skin an undesirable trait? Are "slanty" eyes an undesirable trait? Some may be clear cut but many are not.
Second - stopping disease is not that easy. Most diseases don't have just a simple piece of DNA code that identifies it. You'd never be able to eliminate all diseases.
Third - Some things are not in the genes. Things like laziness, arrogance, and stupidity are tied to the environment a person is raised in. This is the classic nature vs. nurture debate.
Finally - You'd be battling religious fervor. This is probably the biggest obstacle.
And yet they are prosecuting somebody. It would seem to me that your tin-foil hat bullshit would have made sense before this announcement. And the name means:
"Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing"
That sounds tougher than just saying "clarfication".
Take a look at the law. It is questionable how enforceable it really is and whether it will have any real impact but it is not "just propaganda with spam promotion".
Can't spam implies an opt out service which would be very bad. Can Spam means you have to opt in to receive spam. The Do Not Call list is just the opposite. You have to sign up to the list to block the calls. Imagine if you had to sign up every email address you have?
The question would come down to whether Creative Commons has any value in the eyes of the court. Copyright law is pretty clear on all of this. If you create it it is yours whether you put that little symbol next to it and register it or not.
Unless Linspire can prove that he had the license under the general Attribution license when they used it then they are out of look. I just checked the google cache and it showed non-commercial. Either way - no matter what CC license you use they must always give credit where credit is due.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the burden of proof is on your to prove that it is NOT free speech. Videos of people having sexual intercourse is no different than videos of a gentleman verbally attacking the president. Freedom of speech doesn't mean just saying things verbally. It is the freedom to express yourself without the intervention of the government. Obviously there are limits. Your freedom of speech doesn't override other people's freedoms (can't scream outside a neighbors house in the middle of the night) and can't cause harm to others (shouting fire in packed theatre). Pornography does neither of these things.
It is a major problem especially considering porn turns women into sex objects
Explain to me how porn turns women into sex objects and not men? I know both men and women who view porn both individually and as a couple. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support what you say. You can't just condemn something because of your religous beliefs.
porn is a problem, and I don't care what anyone says.
See that is the problem. You don't care what anybody has to say. It is you who has mad up your mind and it is you that is getting mad, dismissing our arguments outright and prentending that it isn't normal.
Did you stop and think that perhaps your friend was only attracted to young girls (thus the FBI bust) and that was why he couldn't get off with normal sex? I mean I have looked at porn for decades now and real sex is still better.
I know you are a troll but I would like to address your assumption. Anything you do on your computer (or in your house) to block another person's speech will never violate a person's freedom of speech. People have the right to speak but not to make you listen.
A law that requires a filter on the internet, however, would be a violation of freedom of speech (and is pretty much what is happening in China). Laws to compensate for bad parenting should never exist. I personally believe there should be no minimum drinking age either (and surely not 21 either way).
God forbid that children get the idea that sex can be an enjoyable experience and that sex outside of the missionary position is acceptable. Porn saves many relationships because it gives couples new ideas. Not all porn is John Hugecock and Jane Boobjob having violent sex with a plunger up her ass. There is plenty of porn that is designed for couples.
Either way, if a guy is treating his girlfriend like a porn star than perhaps he has other respect issues that need to be dealt with. While porn will not cause a man to be disrepectful it may make it worse.
Especially since I don't know many guys who weren't already sneaking porn by the time they were in their early teens. I can't find any statistics on it but I would have to guess that a majority of men had viewed porn before the age of 18 and turned out to actually be decent upstanding adults. I personally can't even remember the first porn magazine I looked at and I have only had sex in serious relationships and have never even come close to sexual assaulting anyone. I have nothing but the highest respect for women.
In order to be a corporation in the US you only need to incorporate in one state (Delaware being very popular for tax reasons). In order to qualify for tax exempt status (which is what they mean by federal recognition - the IRS) you have to qualify under 501(c).
Non-profit and not-for-profit can be used interchangeably. You will rarely hear any accountant refer to a company as non-profit. Not-for-profit is the current "politically correct" term.
In order for a not-for-profit to receive tax exemption it has to qualify under the IRS codes section 501(c). The most common being 501(c)(3) for charitable organizations.
I have a music degree (amongst others). One part of learning music was understanding the science behind music. What makes consonance and dissonance, the difference between well-tempered and equal tempered, etc. I studied hundreds of different works to recognize the formulas that recurred through different styles (3rd movement is a waltz).
Knowing all of that helped me understand music better and perhaps made me a better composer and performer but I still pretty much suck compared to the greats. Oddly enough, most of the greats got by with little more than cursory knowledge of music (see Charlie Parker).
My point is that cooking is very similar. Knowing the science behind it isn't going to turn you into Jacques Pepin anymore than music science turned me into Gerry Mulligan but it can make us amateurs just a little bit better.
As has been said a million times it will be hard to convict somebody for spamming but it is a lot easier to get identity theft and good old fashioned fraud to stick.
Actually - Hannaford (only in the Northeast) has a really great produce section. I am not sure how much of it is local and how much is not but they come the closest to a farmer's market I have seen.
Funny. I actually made a similar comment to a post above. Farmer's market produce is often fresher and cheaper and you are supporting local farmers. Most people really don't care, though. Grocery stores are convenient "one-stop" Megalomarts.
I posted around the same time as you and had the same concern but according to the article they do pick the best and freshest for exactly your point. If they didn't then they wouldn't stay in business. Any new business really has to be extraordinary to compete. A new grocery store opened in my town and has to compete with two others. There produce sucked. They had no butchers on staff and the store is always empty. Now another store is supposed to come in but they are famous for their fresh and locally grown fruit. I know they will do well.
I live outside of a major city but too far to get this right now but even when I lived in the city my biggest problem with the idea was stuff like produce. I love cooking and I am very picky about my fruit and veggies and cuts of meat. According to the article, however, this seems to also be a big concern of the companies. They even claim that they would do a better job. I would have to see that.
I actually enjoy grocery shopping sometimes (ok call me a freak) but I would to pull up a recipe and have the ingredients delivered.
Xerox and Kleenex are not "on the verge" of losing their trademarks. There is no other company that uses the words Kleenex or Xerox in their product and Kleenex clearly states on the box - Kleenex brand tissue. If on the box it said Kleenex brand Kleenexes then they would have a problem.
Under trademark law a company cannot selectively sue people for using their trademark without permission. If Kleenex let Puffs call their tissues Kleenexes instead of tissues but then sued another company for the same thing they would lose. The company must also be careful to only refer to their trademark as an adjective and not a noun. Kleenex brand tissues, Xerox brand copiers.
Either way the point is moot. The family does not hold a trademark on Googol for any use (but other people do).
No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are plenty of good reasons to keep IP. Copyrights are fine as long as they have a finite term. Unfortunately, that term seems to be getting less and less finite. You have to remember that writing a book can take years of hard work and research. The author deserves some compensation for his work (and most definitely credit at the least).
Patents follow the same line as copyrights. As long as they are for real inventions and have a reasonable finite term (which they do). Software patents are the evil here. A patent on clicking a button to shop doesn't seem very inventive to me.
Trademarks really are the least evil of the bunch. Trademarks protect companies by making sure that the goodwill associated with their name is not take advantage of by a knockoff. For the consumer it is good because you know that when you buy a Coca-Cola you are getting a soda made by the Coca-Cola company.
Without IP laws, companies would be forced to keep everything very tightly secret and secure so as to maintain their competitive advantage. And your point is moot. Patents do not prevent a competitor from building a better version of your product. Most patents issued are improvements on previous patents.
Forget Matsushita. Their tradermark is on digital cameras. Dataflow Services, Inc on the other hand has a trademark on it for "installation of computer networks". That one sounds a whole hell of a lot closer to what they did.
Of course, this is only an issue if they decide to use the name of the distribution in commerce. Since it is just a custom distro for this library I don't think that will be an issue.
Most states have some sort of registration, licensing or education requirements for handguns.
I have never met a well adapted adult who was completely ignored by their parents. I also think that trying too hard is dangerous. There is a middle ground that seems to be the most successful.
And I am not saying that the license teaches you how to be a good parent or even guarantees you will be a good parent anymore than a drivers license makes you a good driver. It does insure that you have at least a minimal amount of knowledge is raising children - how they should sleep (on their back or on their front), what they should eat, how they should interact with pets, etc.
You can't tell me that it is absurd that you can't drive unless you know how to parallel park but you bring a new life into this world not knowing that you shouldn't leave them in the car while you run into the mall.
You are better off organizing an Investment Club. $100-$200 is not really enough to start investing.
Why not take a vote?
Dear god I hope you are kidding. A simple majority is hardly the way to decide something as serious as this. You would start race riots. You'd have to set the limit at least to 75% or better. At least then the minorities would have a chance.
Therefore we test people to make sure they're good parents
While I agree that there should be a license to have children (we have them for driving, fishing, and gun ownership) how would you be able to test whether somebody would be a good parent. Would you be automatically skewing things towards the wealthy? Would there be Kaplan Test prep for it? How do you quantify laziness or stupidity? Remember that IQ tests are worthless. I know people with 150+ IQs that I wouldn't trust with a cat.
How about another vote? Who wants religious fanatics in the future?
This is another one you don't want a vote on. It's not just fanatics. A very large part of our country is very religous and are against genetic engineering of any type. Why do you think there is even a question of making abortion or cloning illegal? A country that wasn't overrun by religous fervor wouldn't even hesitate at keeping them legal.
Just so you know - I am not against weeding out some of the chaff in this country but I know that it is a real uphill battle.
Something like Sickel-Cell anemia is a single-gene disorder but my understanding is that most common diseases (like Cancer, Heart Disease, etc.) are multi-gene disorders that are much harder to detect.
The first problem would be who decides what is an undesirable trait? Is dark skin an undesirable trait? Are "slanty" eyes an undesirable trait? Some may be clear cut but many are not.
Second - stopping disease is not that easy. Most diseases don't have just a simple piece of DNA code that identifies it. You'd never be able to eliminate all diseases.
Third - Some things are not in the genes. Things like laziness, arrogance, and stupidity are tied to the environment a person is raised in. This is the classic nature vs. nurture debate.
Finally - You'd be battling religious fervor. This is probably the biggest obstacle.
And yet they are prosecuting somebody. It would seem to me that your tin-foil hat bullshit would have made sense before this announcement. And the name means:
"Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing"
That sounds tougher than just saying "clarfication".
Take a look at the law. It is questionable how enforceable it really is and whether it will have any real impact but it is not "just propaganda with spam promotion".
Can't spam implies an opt out service which would be very bad. Can Spam means you have to opt in to receive spam. The Do Not Call list is just the opposite. You have to sign up to the list to block the calls. Imagine if you had to sign up every email address you have?
The question would come down to whether Creative Commons has any value in the eyes of the court. Copyright law is pretty clear on all of this. If you create it it is yours whether you put that little symbol next to it and register it or not.
Unless Linspire can prove that he had the license under the general Attribution license when they used it then they are out of look. I just checked the google cache and it showed non-commercial. Either way - no matter what CC license you use they must always give credit where credit is due.