So you want the law to change so that you can legally steal technology just because you don't want to pay the licensing fee? It cost money to develop DVD technology, and you have no right to demand the product of other peoples labor for free through force of govt. Move to China if you want to do this, but don't corrupt the US with your socialist notions.
"1) How do you figure that the government has done nothing illegal? It's surely unconstitutional. "...nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Jose Padilla didn't get his due process. If you answer this post, answer this: How and from where does the Executive branch of the government get the power to imprison and American citizen without even a grand jury, much less a jury trial?"
"should 'nerds' also be thinking about supporting those who fight for our rights to, say, play DVDs on an open-source OS"
No one is saying you can't play DVDs on an open source OS. However, you need to lincense the algorithm from whatever consortium created the DVD standard. Otherwise you are guilty of IP theft. That's what the whole DeCSS controversy arose over. Reverse Engineering DeCSS to create software to play DVDs without licensing the technology is illegal.
My point is, the govt. has done nothing illegal. Therefore, if you don't like it, you can urge people to vote out the current administration and get some one in to change the law or leave the country if you really don't like it. I don't think the govt. is being unreasonable in classifying this guy as an unlawful combatant and treating him as such, regardless of his citizenship.
MS wanted to include the split command, but were afraid of being accused by the govt. of using their OS monopoly to create a monopoly in split software, or so I've heard.
Dell seems to have figured this out already since their ads hint that families should have more than one pc these days. "Dude, we're getting another Dell."
You make no sense. Denying the rights of a group of people denies the rights of the individuals within the group. Corporations are groups of people who have rights. Therefore, corporations have rights, as do other groups.
According to the law, an unlawful combatant doesn't have the same rights as a US citizen. He has been declared an unlawful combatant. If you don't trust the govt. enough that you think this was done unjustly, you can emmigrate or elect new leadership. Based on the latest elections, people seem to think the Republicans are doing the right thing.
So you want a public trial that compromises operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Give me a break. If you don't trust the govt. enough to believe they have enough evidence to consider him an unlawful combatant, you should consider emmigrating.
Dude, can you read? I didn't say don't tax rich people or corporations. I said tax them fairly. That is, tax everyone the same percentage of their income.
If you look at the philosophy behind libertarianism/objectivism, it makes sense that they aren't %100 pro-corporate. Your example of corporate welfare is in opposition to free market, and therefore a socialist (liberal) philosophy. Of course libertarians are against it. Shortening the limits of a copyright steals the work of an individual in favor of a group, which is also socialist, which is why I claim it is a liberal stance on an issue.
No. He's been classified as an enemy combatant, and being treated like a prisoner of war. Since he came back to the US to kill civilians, he doesn't even get Geneva Convention protection. The army doesn't hold a trial for any enemy soldier, and Padilla doesn't deserve an exception.
The govt. needs special powers during wartime. They can't compromise agents in Afghanistan by giving Padilla a public trial. Your standards are not practical. There is nothing new about the designation of an enemy combatant. There has to be some level of trust in the govt. in matters of national security. Given I have no ties with terrorists, I have nothing to fear, and have seen no evidence that the govt. is abusing the authority given them.
Americans revolted in part because of taxation without representation. Your comment makes no sense since King George got his income from taxes. None of the founding fathers would be considered liberal by today's standards. There was no thought of welfare or social security or socialized medicine back then.
When I was a grad student, I paid a hell of a lot less than 25%. When I worked overtime during summer breaks, I never paid extra taxes. None of your statements sound accurate. The highest tax bracket pays something like 35% in federal taxes alone.
"The government wants to use this info to decide whether or not to kick your door down, haul you off to an undiscolsed location, declare you an "enemy combatant" and thereby deny you any due process rights, like Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber."
Jose Padilla is a traitor and should be put on trial and shot as such. I can't wait for him to get his due process. He's lucky he's been classified as an enemy combatant. He'll probably live longer that way. Why this guy has turned into some sort of symbol of freedom on slashdot is beyond me.
"How the heck can a CORPORATION have rights to do anything other than exist for the good of the consumers it serves."
Maybe in the former Soviet Union and China. In America, rights of people who produce goods and services are as important as those who consume them, or at least should be.
Somebody mod the parent down as overrated. Verizon is challenging the law as unconstitutional. They want the law stricken down, not permission to break it.
Corporations are groups of people cooperating to produce a product or service. Of course these groups have rights, just like greenpeace and peta, although you wouldn't know it from reading slashdot.
Nowhere in the article does it say Verizon wants to sell call data to other companies. In fact, They deny it in the article. Yet in the subject, the poster claims that's what they want to do. Quit sensationalizing.
"The Constitution is quite clear on the matter. It says copyrights are to be granted for "limited times." I don't know any definition of "limited" that would mean 75 years plus a 20-year extension plus the chance of getting another extension later. The whole issue was argued three centuries ago, and it was established as a principle of democracy that, when the author is dead, his work becomes the property of all."
Someone should send the author a dictionary. He apparently doesn't know what limited means, as opposed to perpetual. 75+20!=infinity. Even 75+20+limited extension!=infinity unless the number of limited extensions is infinite. Simple math, really.
Slashdot Mirror
So you want the law to change so that you can legally steal technology just because you don't want to pay the licensing fee? It cost money to develop DVD technology, and you have no right to demand the product of other peoples labor for free through force of govt. Move to China if you want to do this, but don't corrupt the US with your socialist notions.
"1) How do you figure that the government has done nothing illegal? It's surely unconstitutional. "...nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Jose Padilla didn't get his due process. If you answer this post, answer this: How and from where does the Executive branch of the government get the power to imprison and American citizen without even a grand jury, much less a jury trial?"
It not unconstitutional. See here.
"should 'nerds' also be thinking about supporting those who fight for our rights to, say, play DVDs on an open-source OS"
No one is saying you can't play DVDs on an open source OS. However, you need to lincense the algorithm from whatever consortium created the DVD standard. Otherwise you are guilty of IP theft. That's what the whole DeCSS controversy arose over. Reverse Engineering DeCSS to create software to play DVDs without licensing the technology is illegal.
My point is, the govt. has done nothing illegal. Therefore, if you don't like it, you can urge people to vote out the current administration and get some one in to change the law or leave the country if you really don't like it. I don't think the govt. is being unreasonable in classifying this guy as an unlawful combatant and treating him as such, regardless of his citizenship.
MS wanted to include the split command, but were afraid of being accused by the govt. of using their OS monopoly to create a monopoly in split software, or so I've heard.
Dell seems to have figured this out already since their ads hint that families should have more than one pc these days. "Dude, we're getting another Dell."
You make no sense. Denying the rights of a group of people denies the rights of the individuals within the group. Corporations are groups of people who have rights. Therefore, corporations have rights, as do other groups.
According to the law, an unlawful combatant doesn't have the same rights as a US citizen. He has been declared an unlawful combatant. If you don't trust the govt. enough that you think this was done unjustly, you can emmigrate or elect new leadership. Based on the latest elections, people seem to think the Republicans are doing the right thing.
So you want a public trial that compromises operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Give me a break. If you don't trust the govt. enough to believe they have enough evidence to consider him an unlawful combatant, you should consider emmigrating.
Maybe they found some homemade "how to uncap your cable modem" video tapes.
Dude, can you read? I didn't say don't tax rich people or corporations. I said tax them fairly. That is, tax everyone the same percentage of their income.
If you look at the philosophy behind libertarianism/objectivism, it makes sense that they aren't %100 pro-corporate. Your example of corporate welfare is in opposition to free market, and therefore a socialist (liberal) philosophy. Of course libertarians are against it. Shortening the limits of a copyright steals the work of an individual in favor of a group, which is also socialist, which is why I claim it is a liberal stance on an issue.
By liberal, I mean approaching socialist, which is the commonly understood meaning of the term today.
No. He's been classified as an enemy combatant, and being treated like a prisoner of war. Since he came back to the US to kill civilians, he doesn't even get Geneva Convention protection. The army doesn't hold a trial for any enemy soldier, and Padilla doesn't deserve an exception.
The govt. needs special powers during wartime. They can't compromise agents in Afghanistan by giving Padilla a public trial. Your standards are not practical. There is nothing new about the designation of an enemy combatant. There has to be some level of trust in the govt. in matters of national security. Given I have no ties with terrorists, I have nothing to fear, and have seen no evidence that the govt. is abusing the authority given them.
Of course laws should be constructed based on moral principles. Your moral principles are inconsistent, however, and therefore, not rational.
Americans revolted in part because of taxation without representation. Your comment makes no sense since King George got his income from taxes. None of the founding fathers would be considered liberal by today's standards. There was no thought of welfare or social security or socialized medicine back then.
"Also overtime is taxed at rate easily over 50%."
When I was a grad student, I paid a hell of a lot less than 25%. When I worked overtime during summer breaks, I never paid extra taxes. None of your statements sound accurate. The highest tax bracket pays something like 35% in federal taxes alone.
"The government wants to use this info to decide whether or not to kick your door down, haul you off to an undiscolsed location, declare you an "enemy combatant" and thereby deny you any due process rights, like Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber."
Jose Padilla is a traitor and should be put on trial and shot as such. I can't wait for him to get his due process. He's lucky he's been classified as an enemy combatant. He'll probably live longer that way. Why this guy has turned into some sort of symbol of freedom on slashdot is beyond me.
"Thus, I'm okay with Amazon.com using my buying habits while I have a problem with the phone company doing the same."
So we should construct laws around what you feel is ok or not? Laws should at least be consistent.
"How the heck can a CORPORATION have rights to do anything other than exist for the good of the consumers it serves."
Maybe in the former Soviet Union and China. In America, rights of people who produce goods and services are as important as those who consume them, or at least should be.
Somebody mod the parent down as overrated. Verizon is challenging the law as unconstitutional. They want the law stricken down, not permission to break it.
Corporations are groups of people cooperating to produce a product or service. Of course these groups have rights, just like greenpeace and peta, although you wouldn't know it from reading slashdot.
Nowhere in the article does it say Verizon wants to sell call data to other companies. In fact, They deny it in the article. Yet in the subject, the poster claims that's what they want to do. Quit sensationalizing.
"The Constitution is quite clear on the matter. It says copyrights are to be granted for "limited times." I don't know any definition of "limited" that would mean 75 years plus a 20-year extension plus the chance of getting another extension later. The whole issue was argued three centuries ago, and it was established as a principle of democracy that, when the author is dead, his work becomes the property of all."
Someone should send the author a dictionary. He apparently doesn't know what limited means, as opposed to perpetual. 75+20!=infinity. Even 75+20+limited extension!=infinity unless the number of limited extensions is infinite. Simple math, really.