What, are Corporations not allowed any rights, because public opinion says they're evil?
Executive #1: Sir, Congress and the President just passed a law stripping every right corporations had. We no longer own any properties, patents, and copyrights that we used to own. Executive #2: Well, so how do we make a profit now? Executive #1: We can't sir, we charged money for our products. Now they're free. Executive #2: Well, lets close down the corporation then. Inform the employees that they no longer have a job. 10,000 employees: What? We're getting laid off? Stupid system....
In this Disney case, the judicial branch said a particular law applies in Disney's favor. Its not because the Supreme Court is biased towards corporations. To claim that one Supreme Court decision means the entire US government panders to big business is ignorant and ridiculous.
"...or will Aschroft shoot for a trial in Virignia, hoping for the death penalty. Will this ultimately lead to an Orwellian 1984 type future? I don't know about you, but I'm joining Amnesty International right now."
You can hate Bush and disagree on a war with Iraq all you want. But next time, read the news. Your ignorant reasons for spreading anti-Americanism doesn't do the world any good.
Generally, most damage to the roads are caused by heavier, gas guzzling vehicles. By taxing gas, you do a good job of targeting those who damaged the roads the most.
It'd make no sense to tax driven miles to cover damaged highways. For the sake of an extreme example, a Geo Metro that travels 500 miles won't cause the same road damage that a semi-truck would over the same distance. Why would it make sense to tax them the same amount, if they don't cause the same amount of damage?
Well of course it doesn't *destroy* a hard drive. I just used the word "destory", because it sounds a lot better than saying "Opaserv changes some of the 1's and 0's on your hard drive in a bad way"
Heh, one clue is that after Opaserv ruins the computer, it only allows the computer to boot up and display this
----
Illegal Microsoft Windows license detected!
You are in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act!
Your unauthorized license has been revoked.
For more information, please call us at:
1-888-NOPIRACY
If you are outside the USA, please look up the correct contact information
on our website, at:
www.bsa.org
Business Software Alliance
Promoting a safe & legal online world.
----
Annoying huh? But you're right. I've been helping a lot of people out who've been infected by Opaserv. Of the few who recognized it is Opaserv, I've already had 1 guy say "Well, I don't want to mess with it, I went out earlier today and bought a new machine with WinXP on it."
Funny, the Opaserv worm is currently exploiting one flaw with great success. The newest variant destroys a hard drive
Its so bad, that if you install win98 on a fresh machine, password protect and share the C drive, and connect to the internet, you can get this variant within 5 minutes. Opaserv exploits a shared drive password flaw, and has full access to the machine. Then it will ruin the CMOS and main hard drive partitions.
From my tech support experience, this year has been the worst for exploits.
You see, we don't actually seem to get the rights that we lose back, which is part of the problem.
Not really. Think of it this way. When one person loses their right to privacy, another person gains their right to security, and vise versa. You always hear about lost rights, especially those you care about most. But we never stop to think what rights are gained in place of the rights we lost. Face it, you don't see many news articles from the New York Times saying "Right to Security Strengthened! NRA Pleased, Plans to Not Sue."
Because we only think about the rights we lose, over time, it appears our civil rights have only gone downhill. But this isn't the case. Look back at history, and see if how many of our civil rights have actually degraded. Do we enjoy the same priveledges of the first amendment now as we did 100 years ago? Are people given help by their government when they are unemployed? Do citizens get some free medical care? How about right to privacy? Or the right to security? When you look at the big picture over history...civil rights today are the basically same, if not better, than they were many years ago.
This whole 'we need more police powers' reminds me of Star wars Episode 2. Seriously.
Yes, but by Episode 6 (the equivalent of the year 2050 on Earth) a young Mark Hammill clone will come along and save us in a really cool, dramatic fashion. We'll all celebrate afterwars with super-advanced eletronic Furbys!
And I can't understand yours. I'm glad you wondering whats going through my head, because I'm wondering the same about you. To try to figure things out, lemme explain my position.
We were given specific rights, why exactly is it ok to take them away now?
Whenever very very small parts of civil rights are taken away, its always done for a good reason. They are only taken away when extreme or unique circumstances come up and demand that a civil right has to be hedged in favor other rights. Majority, debates, and public opinion help decide whenever any civil rights have to be taken away. This is not new. This has always been the case ever since the U.S. was founded, and I suspect it will continue to be this way. (Of course, this is also the case for other countries as well)
Now we both feel that the right to privacy and the right to security are basic rights, but we disagree on their importance. To you, the right to privacy is absolute, untouchable, and written in stone. To me, the right to security is absolute, untouchable, and written in stone. While you're thinking, "We can't allow these people to have all this security! That will take away my right to privacy!" I'm thinking, "How dare that guy, wanting so much privacy, that'd make our country too insecure!" So what do we do? We can't both be happy. Is it fair that you get to keep your most important right, and I lose mine? No, this is a situation where we have to very carefully balance each others most important rights out.
It'd sure be nice if we all agreed on the value and importance for every fundamental right. But we don't. Because of this, we can't satify everyone's belief to the rights their entitled to. We usually have a "normal" balance between these rights. But when something drastic comes along, say a major terrorist threat, everyone competes for their most important rights, and we have to settle into a new balance.
Your right to live doesn't trump my right to privacy however.
Hmm, I believe the opposite. I guess that's part of the root of our differences.
You cannot stop terrorists and prevent future attacks unless the government has some ability to tap into private citizens conversations when they feel its justified. This means, that in order to protect my life and other peoples lives, (not to mention as our economy and way of life), the right to privacy cannot trump everything when terrorism is involved.
Ya, alarms go off in my head too when I hear that, but I'm confident that these small degredations in our personal privacy are as far as they can go. This is because, in America, we have paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos who do a great job of keeping any civil rights degredations in check. So because of these many paranoid Americans, there is absolutely no chance we'll ever get close to the Orwellian 1984 world we all dread.
I agree with you. There can be a trusted balance of civil rights and government intelligence.
What I can't understand, despite many many hours of thought, is how so many people are deathly paranoid of their government spying on them, believing that the USA will instantly turn the world into 1984 overnight.
Its as if they believe civil rights trump ALL other rights, even the right to life, no matter how extreme the circumstances. Yes, civil rights are extremely important...I'm glad the USA is very watchful any time any civil rights have to be taken down to make room for more important rights. But when articles like this appear on slashdot, somehow trying to claim that the internet has turned us into Big Brother...its downright annoying. What, should we remove the internet? Should we all turn fanatically paranoid and become distrustful towards our government? Do we all run around continuouly yelling "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Perhaps some of you can help me out. Why is it when people hear that the internet may or may not be on the road to Big Brother, that so many people seem to lose all common sense and become so paranoid?
Something that is commonly said in jest could easily be taken out of context by these government personnel and blown way out of proportion...
Perhaps by studying jesting remarks in games, anti-terrorism investigators will better understanding real vs. joking threats in real life.
Besides, this is a study of social behavior, not an Everquest anti-terror crackdown. They're not looking for Osama bin Laden's online character.
Personally, I think it would be a blast if the feds EXPANDED their Everquest study, such as practicing their infiltrartion method by putting moles inside Everquest groups for intelligence, or secretly picking off key characters. It would add a whole new dimension to the game. =)
ROTT, for some odd reason, gave me terrible motion sickness. Many times playing ROTT, I remember thinking "Feeling queasy...but...must...continue game". Then I'd go into shroom mode. I really hated that... =)
But seriously, did anybody else find that ROTT gave them more motion sickness than any other 3D game?
I have yet to see reasonable proof of exactly who was responsible for 9/11, and so have not put the CIA or Israeli secret police off my list.
How about when everyone in Al-Qeada admitted it....over and over again on videotape, on audiotape, and on the internet? Or how about many other countries overwhelming evidence that clearly points that direction?
Or is that still not enough proof for you?
You complain that the world will be ruined by oppresive governments. In reality...paranoid, delusional, and untrusting people such as yourself will ruin it far more effeciently.
This man really needs to hire some higher quality goons.
Homer: [answering the door] Who is it?
Voice: Goons.
Homer: Who?
Voice: Hired goons.
Homer: Hired goons? [opens the door]
Goons: [take Homer roughly away]
Slashdot Mirror
What, are Corporations not allowed any rights, because public opinion says they're evil?
Executive #1: Sir, Congress and the President just passed a law stripping every right corporations had. We no longer own any properties, patents, and copyrights that we used to own.
Executive #2: Well, so how do we make a profit now?
Executive #1: We can't sir, we charged money for our products. Now they're free.
Executive #2: Well, lets close down the corporation then. Inform the employees that they no longer have a job.
10,000 employees: What? We're getting laid off? Stupid system....
In this Disney case, the judicial branch said a particular law applies in Disney's favor. Its not because the Supreme Court is biased towards corporations. To claim that one Supreme Court decision means the entire US government panders to big business is ignorant and ridiculous.
I'm still waiting for the region 1 DVD though. I'm just afraid it will also have the infamous red tint that everyone got in Japan.
"...or will Aschroft shoot for a trial in Virignia, hoping for the death penalty. Will this ultimately lead to an Orwellian 1984 type future? I don't know about you, but I'm joining Amnesty International right now."
They're all duplicates
slashdot too us-centric? german-speaking?http://www.strohhalm.org [strohhalm.org]
They also forgot Germany.
See, I can also make an ignorant statement without backing it up. Where's my mod points?
Did you think that up all by yourself? Or did your uneducated friends help you out?
Bush has repeatedly said he would not attack North Korea. Bush has no intentions of bombing Iran. Bush said a war with Iraq is to get rid of Saddam's regime, not to bomb the Iraqi people.
You can hate Bush and disagree on a war with Iraq all you want. But next time, read the news. Your ignorant reasons for spreading anti-Americanism doesn't do the world any good.
I'm with you, I don't have a clue what Internet Explorer has to do with this story.
Nope, breeder reactors take care of that problem. It'll give quite enough fuel to last much longer than a century
Generally, most damage to the roads are caused by heavier, gas guzzling vehicles. By taxing gas, you do a good job of targeting those who damaged the roads the most.
It'd make no sense to tax driven miles to cover damaged highways. For the sake of an extreme example, a Geo Metro that travels 500 miles won't cause the same road damage that a semi-truck would over the same distance. Why would it make sense to tax them the same amount, if they don't cause the same amount of damage?
Whoa! That sounded just like a clip from politician's weekly radio address on CNN!
All it needs now is a followup like "...and it will only benifit special interest groups and their agendas" =)
Well of course it doesn't *destroy* a hard drive. I just used the word "destory", because it sounds a lot better than saying "Opaserv changes some of the 1's and 0's on your hard drive in a bad way"
----
Illegal Microsoft Windows license detected! You are in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act!
Your unauthorized license has been revoked.
For more information, please call us at:
1-888-NOPIRACY
If you are outside the USA, please look up the correct contact information on our website, at:
www.bsa.org
Business Software Alliance
Promoting a safe & legal online world.
----
Annoying huh? But you're right. I've been helping a lot of people out who've been infected by Opaserv. Of the few who recognized it is Opaserv, I've already had 1 guy say "Well, I don't want to mess with it, I went out earlier today and bought a new machine with WinXP on it."
Its so bad, that if you install win98 on a fresh machine, password protect and share the C drive, and connect to the internet, you can get this variant within 5 minutes. Opaserv exploits a shared drive password flaw, and has full access to the machine. Then it will ruin the CMOS and main hard drive partitions.
From my tech support experience, this year has been the worst for exploits.
=)
Because you do a great job of thinking things out, I'm marking you down as a friend.
Not really. Think of it this way. When one person loses their right to privacy, another person gains their right to security, and vise versa. You always hear about lost rights, especially those you care about most. But we never stop to think what rights are gained in place of the rights we lost. Face it, you don't see many news articles from the New York Times saying "Right to Security Strengthened! NRA Pleased, Plans to Not Sue."
Because we only think about the rights we lose, over time, it appears our civil rights have only gone downhill. But this isn't the case. Look back at history, and see if how many of our civil rights have actually degraded. Do we enjoy the same priveledges of the first amendment now as we did 100 years ago? Are people given help by their government when they are unemployed? Do citizens get some free medical care? How about right to privacy? Or the right to security? When you look at the big picture over history...civil rights today are the basically same, if not better, than they were many years ago.
This whole 'we need more police powers' reminds me of Star wars Episode 2. Seriously.
Yes, but by Episode 6 (the equivalent of the year 2050 on Earth) a young Mark Hammill clone will come along and save us in a really cool, dramatic fashion. We'll all celebrate afterwars with super-advanced eletronic Furbys!
And I can't understand yours. I'm glad you wondering whats going through my head, because I'm wondering the same about you. To try to figure things out, lemme explain my position.
We were given specific rights, why exactly is it ok to take them away now?
Whenever very very small parts of civil rights are taken away, its always done for a good reason. They are only taken away when extreme or unique circumstances come up and demand that a civil right has to be hedged in favor other rights. Majority, debates, and public opinion help decide whenever any civil rights have to be taken away. This is not new. This has always been the case ever since the U.S. was founded, and I suspect it will continue to be this way. (Of course, this is also the case for other countries as well)
Now we both feel that the right to privacy and the right to security are basic rights, but we disagree on their importance. To you, the right to privacy is absolute, untouchable, and written in stone. To me, the right to security is absolute, untouchable, and written in stone. While you're thinking, "We can't allow these people to have all this security! That will take away my right to privacy!" I'm thinking, "How dare that guy, wanting so much privacy, that'd make our country too insecure!" So what do we do? We can't both be happy. Is it fair that you get to keep your most important right, and I lose mine? No, this is a situation where we have to very carefully balance each others most important rights out.
It'd sure be nice if we all agreed on the value and importance for every fundamental right. But we don't. Because of this, we can't satify everyone's belief to the rights their entitled to. We usually have a "normal" balance between these rights. But when something drastic comes along, say a major terrorist threat, everyone competes for their most important rights, and we have to settle into a new balance.
Hehe, please tell me that was sarcastic. If so, that'd be a great followup to my "why do people get so paranoid over civil rights" post =)
Hmm, I believe the opposite. I guess that's part of the root of our differences.
You cannot stop terrorists and prevent future attacks unless the government has some ability to tap into private citizens conversations when they feel its justified. This means, that in order to protect my life and other peoples lives, (not to mention as our economy and way of life), the right to privacy cannot trump everything when terrorism is involved.
Ya, alarms go off in my head too when I hear that, but I'm confident that these small degredations in our personal privacy are as far as they can go. This is because, in America, we have paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos who do a great job of keeping any civil rights degredations in check. So because of these many paranoid Americans, there is absolutely no chance we'll ever get close to the Orwellian 1984 world we all dread.
What I can't understand, despite many many hours of thought, is how so many people are deathly paranoid of their government spying on them, believing that the USA will instantly turn the world into 1984 overnight.
Its as if they believe civil rights trump ALL other rights, even the right to life, no matter how extreme the circumstances. Yes, civil rights are extremely important...I'm glad the USA is very watchful any time any civil rights have to be taken down to make room for more important rights. But when articles like this appear on slashdot, somehow trying to claim that the internet has turned us into Big Brother...its downright annoying. What, should we remove the internet? Should we all turn fanatically paranoid and become distrustful towards our government? Do we all run around continuouly yelling "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Perhaps some of you can help me out. Why is it when people hear that the internet may or may not be on the road to Big Brother, that so many people seem to lose all common sense and become so paranoid?
Perhaps by studying jesting remarks in games, anti-terrorism investigators will better understanding real vs. joking threats in real life.
Besides, this is a study of social behavior, not an Everquest anti-terror crackdown. They're not looking for Osama bin Laden's online character.
Personally, I think it would be a blast if the feds EXPANDED their Everquest study, such as practicing their infiltrartion method by putting moles inside Everquest groups for intelligence, or secretly picking off key characters. It would add a whole new dimension to the game. =)
How dare those evil Hollywood producers, using their own money to buy things for themselves! There should be a law against that!
Oh wait, that's called Communism
ROTT, for some odd reason, gave me terrible motion sickness. Many times playing ROTT, I remember thinking "Feeling queasy...but...must...continue game". Then I'd go into shroom mode. I really hated that... =)
But seriously, did anybody else find that ROTT gave them more motion sickness than any other 3D game?
How about when everyone in Al-Qeada admitted it....over and over again on videotape, on audiotape, and on the internet? Or how about many other countries overwhelming evidence that clearly points that direction?
Or is that still not enough proof for you?
You complain that the world will be ruined by oppresive governments. In reality...paranoid, delusional, and untrusting people such as yourself will ruin it far more effeciently.
Homer: [answering the door] Who is it?
Voice: Goons.
Homer: Who?
Voice: Hired goons.
Homer: Hired goons? [opens the door]
Goons: [take Homer roughly away]
(Aaah yes...The Simpsons Archive. Best site ever!)