If a burglar is breaking into your house and you call the police they then have something called "Probable Cause" and can enter your house without a warrant. Heck, if they see the burglar breaking in and you're not home they still have probable cause and can enter without a warrant.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse to troll us or if you're just plain uninformed but whichever the case is, please stop.
Excellent game. And until recently it was a "dead game". Dead in the sense of not being currently marketed.
That was good because it meant no move towards 1 million+ cards. And not going infinite on the cards meant you could remember them all and thus build decks efficiently.
But even Jyhad was flawed. All those fucking idiotic rules posted on the web. And now new releases, which have been good so far but begin to threaten an infinite number of different cards.
BTW...I think 2 people died at the Salem witch trials. When are people going to get over that one.
You think wrongly. Nineteen men and women were carted off to Gallows Hill and hanged by the neck until dead. Dozens more were imprisoned before the trials were stopped.
I think we will get over it when the history is recognized and people stop trying to underplay it. My mate would be dead were that attitude around today, she IS a witch unlike any of those killed who were almost certainly not witches. So when you ask us to get over it I will ask you to first get over the fact that one man was crucified 2000 years ago by the Romans. He was a martyr, so were the innocents killed in Salem, same thing.
So if Jedi is a legitimate religion does that mean I could start a Jedi Temple anti-drug program and get Federal aid in the US as a "Faith-based organization?"
What foundations did the "Fathers of our country" (assuming you are from the US) base our constitution on anyway?
Well, given how many of them were atheists and agnostics I would say probably not the religious basis you seem to be implying. But do your own research, I'm not paid enough to be a history prof. (Okay, actually I am, but I'm a sysad by trade and haven't done serious history work since my degree in archaeology.)
And do you believe when they put in freedom of speech that they had child pornogropy in mind?
Oh dear me, I certainly hope not. Child pornography is highly offensive to any moral person. My bitch isn't with that premise, my bitch is with bringing God's judgement of what constitutes sin into a discussion about the government's judgement about what constitutes a criminal activity.
But hey, I said I was going to ignore most of post in order to rag on the part that offended me. That is NOT an endorsement of child abuse.
I am now going to ignore much of your post and focus on the most offensive part.
God didn't say "if you do these things" he said thought, word and deed.
Why should I give a fuck what your God wants? Take your religion and go away. Governments can't regulate thought because you can't prove what someone thinks, and fortunately your God is pretty damn unlikely to show up on the witness stand and let us know what a defendant thought. When he does, I'll convert. Until then I'll wait for you in hell, because your Christ-guy doesn't like intolerance very much I suspect I'll be seeing you for an eternity.
Oh yeah. This is definitely a flame so moderate it down please. My Karma ain't great but it can take one instance of me getting pissed off.
Absimiliard
Balancing constitutional rights with what "law enforcement" wants is not always easy.
Seems quite easy to me. If you want to live in a free country you say "screw you" to law enforcement and enforce the Constitution. If you want to live in a totalitarian state you say "screw you" to the Constitution and help law enforcement.
Personally I'm quite willing to let some drug-dealers walk, know some kids have been abused, and watch the Oklahoma bombing all over again if the alternative is to start giving up our Constitution. Freedom must be paid for in blood. You can't change that.
I certainly wouldn't. And I'm just as willing to die by a terrorists actions as I was to die in the US Navy at the hands of a foreign aggressor. In fact I see no real difference between dying one way or the other, either death is in service to our Constitution.
Just because it's not that hard to change a tire, doesn't mean I easily dismiss the fact that someone took it upon themselves to slash it.
Man what a poor analogy. It's not like slashing the tire and thus forcing you to change it. It's more analogous to letting the air out of the tire and forcing you to re-inflate it.
Now I'm not defending the practice so everyone can point the flames elsewhere. I'm just pointing out a flawed analogy.
First: If you feel strongly about it have the guts to post under your handle not as an Anonymous Coward.
Second (and last): Regarding anti-government statements. Ummmmm, free-speech? 1st Amendment? Where do you think we'd be if people weren't allowed to make anti-government statements? If you answer "Why we'd all be British colonists" then you got it totally right.
The right to disapprove of the government and point out it's flaws is crucial to a free nation. Without that right we might as well live in Russia, okay that's pure rhetoric and I apologize. But seriously we must be able to criticize the government and monitoring of all communications because of such criticism will exert the proverbial "chilling effect" on that criticism. The Supreme Court has already tackled that one.
It just bugs me to have programmers consider their work to be the equal in expressiveness of Bach or Van Gogh or other, true, artists. Anyone can see that there's a world of difference.
I can accept that. I don't agree with you, but I can accept that you feel that way.
At least you are internally consistent. I'm not certain whether we differ in our axioms or in where we go from there.
Personally I can't see the world of difference. The Brandenburg Concertos for example are all variations on a single theme. (beautiful music as well of course) I would say that multiple programs to accomplish the same task are also simply variations on a theme. The implementation is what counts. Had Bach not been the author of the Concertos the variations might have sucked, had a good programmer not been the author of my hypothetical programs they might suck. Bach was great though, and the Concertos are magnificent art, and a good coder can weave art in the same manner.
It occurs to me that neither of us will convince the other. I believe I understand, and respect, your position even if I disagree with it. Hopefully you can understand mine, even if you disagree.
Fare well in your life Jon. No malice here, just discourse.
Do you really believe this? Okay, I'm sure you do or you wouldn't have said it. It just sounds so unbelievable to me.
May I inquire if you are a coder yourself? If you are, why do you code? Do you just do it for money, or do you get some enjoyment from it? If you do it purely for money and it is nothing more than an exercise in assembling blocks then you would seem to have a pretty sucky job. If you enjoy coding then I would argue that in itself proves that there is art and expression involved.
If you don't code, then how can you presume to know this? Only a coder can state whether or not coding is art or expression. A non-coder making a categorical statement like yours is extreme hubris.
Personally I'm a network admin, my coding is pretty weak. Even I find that coding is an expression of my self when I do it. Given the vast number of different ways to accomplish one task I find the choices involved are very expressive. In fact I think that elegant, succint, aesthetic code is in fact an artistic expression. Take this with a grain of salt though. It is just my opinion.
You know, I was tempted to moderate this down, but I couldn't find an appropriate category, besides which I felt compelled to reply.
How can you not advocate the ignorance of unjust laws. It's called 'civil disobedience' and it has gotten us civil rights and an end to slavery amongst other good things.
As for revolting versus an unjust government. Are you serious? How can such a revolution be wrong? When the government is immoral the moral have an obligation to overthrow it. Peacefully preferable, but violently if necessary. What sane person would advocate unjust tyrrany?
Of course the possibility exists that you were being sarcastic, in which case I merely didn't understand your sarcasm.
The other possibility is that you are a troll, in which case you got me. Reel me in, the hook was definitely taken.
Jon, the question isn't whether or not you approve of MP3Board though. The question is whether linking to illegal material should be illegal.
You are perfectly within your rights to despise them. However, if the law follows real-life example in it's ruling on the Internet this shouldn't be illegal.
I would base this assessment on the fact that it is perfectly legal for me to say "why yes, you can buy crack from the yellow house at the corner of 3rd and Main." Is it ethical for me to do? Well that depends on whether I'm telling a police officer or a drug addict. But it is legal. Newspapers established that some time ago.
I see links as fundamentally similiar. They are merely pointers telling someone where to go. My saying "go to X for Y illegal activity" is not illegal in real life, so why should it be illegal on the internet?
That's why I say that you can love or hate MP3Board, but our personal feelings about the site should have nothing to do with whether or not they are illegal.
Quoth Black Parrot I wonder whether you can sue legislators who pass unconstitutional legislation. Clearly, they violate our civil rights whenever they do so.
I am afraid we can't. Speech on the floor on either Congressional house is, IIRC, about the most protected speech there is. You can say pretty much anything you want, about anything, for as long as you can stay awake, and be totally non-liable.
I hate to say it, but I think that's an important and good thing.
On the other hand I also think that Congress-things that propose blatantly un-constitutional laws are guilty of violating their oath of office. IIRC their oath, like my oath when I joined the military ever so long ago, requires them to "uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America."
If their speech wasn't protected we could probably prosecute them for violating that oath, or at least get them relieved of duty for such. Since their speech is in fact highly protected they're pretty much immune to any such challenge.
Is that good or bad? I just don't know. All these yutz, un-constitutional, laws are really bugging me. However, the protection of speech on the floor of Congress is really important. Destroying it might well be much worse than allowing it to continue even at the price of some bad laws.
Thank your gods, whomever they may be, that the Judicial Branch exists to strike down bad laws.
There is at least one flaw in your point. (disclaimer: there may be more but I'm not interested in this enough to find them)
PETA did not own peta.org. Therefore there property was not taken. Therefore your analogy of me taking your clothes for a parody is not valid.
You can argue that they have a right to ALL peta.XXXXXXX sites all you want. But the fact is that they didn't own it at that time and current law doesn't give them the rights to all peta.XXXXXXXX names just because they happended to trademark PETA in the USA. Heck, what about peta.fi? Do they own it in Finland? (I have no idea if PETA is trademarked in Finland, so maybe they do.) Even if they do,.com and.org are not US properties.
. . . Copyright expires after some ungodly amount of time (in the US thank the Sonny Bono bill for that).
I believe that copyright never expires. Any time it seems like it will the owners of "the Mouse" spend some money, re-buy our/their congress-things, and extend copyright even further.
Given this I therefore surmise that copyright NEVER expires.
The Wings of Honnemise (sp?): An excellent story about a race to put a man in orbit.
The Venus Wars: Enjoyable futuristic war story.
*Gundam*: See all of them. The Gundam series defined the 'Giant Robot' genre, and you'll get a kick out of seeing all the stock items in it.
Patlabor: Cool story about near future Japan and a revolt/rebellion in the worker robots. (Yes there's a lot more to it, but I ain't spoiling anyone here.)
Finally - Crying Freeman: A great story about the relationship between organized crime and the government. (Yes, I'm serious. And it's a must see)
In many of these instances the original material is Manga. Akira and Ghost in the Shell are also examples. When you find a Manga made into a movie expect that the movie will seem a bit disjointed, like it's missing something. This is because the movie is turning a huge multi-comic story into a teeny-weeny two hour movie. Imagine trying to fit Dune (Frank Herbert) into a two-hour movie, now recall how it turned out, now remember that Akira suffers EXACTLY the same problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be a deliberate moron.
If a burglar is breaking into your house and you call the police they then have something called "Probable Cause" and can enter your house without a warrant. Heck, if they see the burglar breaking in and you're not home they still have probable cause and can enter without a warrant.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse to troll us or if you're just plain uninformed but whichever the case is, please stop.
Excellent game. And until recently it was a "dead game". Dead in the sense of not being currently marketed.
That was good because it meant no move towards 1 million+ cards. And not going infinite on the cards meant you could remember them all and thus build decks efficiently.
But even Jyhad was flawed. All those fucking idiotic rules posted on the web. And now new releases, which have been good so far but begin to threaten an infinite number of different cards.
Ah well.
Absimiliard
BTW...I think 2 people died at the Salem witch trials. When are people going to get over that one.
You think wrongly. Nineteen men and women were carted off to Gallows Hill and hanged by the neck until dead. Dozens more were imprisoned before the trials were stopped.
I think we will get over it when the history is recognized and people stop trying to underplay it. My mate would be dead were that attitude around today, she IS a witch unlike any of those killed who were almost certainly not witches. So when you ask us to get over it I will ask you to first get over the fact that one man was crucified 2000 years ago by the Romans. He was a martyr, so were the innocents killed in Salem, same thing.
Absimiliard
So if Jedi is a legitimate religion does that mean I could start a Jedi Temple anti-drug program and get Federal aid in the US as a "Faith-based organization?"
Absimiliard
What foundations did the "Fathers of our country" (assuming you are from the US) base our constitution on anyway?
Well, given how many of them were atheists and agnostics I would say probably not the religious basis you seem to be implying. But do your own research, I'm not paid enough to be a history prof. (Okay, actually I am, but I'm a sysad by trade and haven't done serious history work since my degree in archaeology.)
And do you believe when they put in freedom of speech that they had child pornogropy in mind?
Oh dear me, I certainly hope not. Child pornography is highly offensive to any moral person. My bitch isn't with that premise, my bitch is with bringing God's judgement of what constitutes sin into a discussion about the government's judgement about what constitutes a criminal activity.
But hey, I said I was going to ignore most of post in order to rag on the part that offended me. That is NOT an endorsement of child abuse.
Absimiliard
I am now going to ignore much of your post and focus on the most offensive part.
God didn't say "if you do these things" he said thought, word and deed.
Why should I give a fuck what your God wants? Take your religion and go away. Governments can't regulate thought because you can't prove what someone thinks, and fortunately your God is pretty damn unlikely to show up on the witness stand and let us know what a defendant thought. When he does, I'll convert. Until then I'll wait for you in hell, because your Christ-guy doesn't like intolerance very much I suspect I'll be seeing you for an eternity.
Oh yeah. This is definitely a flame so moderate it down please. My Karma ain't great but it can take one instance of me getting pissed off.
Absimiliard
Balancing constitutional rights with what "law enforcement" wants is not always easy.
Seems quite easy to me. If you want to live in a free country you say "screw you" to law enforcement and enforce the Constitution. If you want to live in a totalitarian state you say "screw you" to the Constitution and help law enforcement.
Personally I'm quite willing to let some drug-dealers walk, know some kids have been abused, and watch the Oklahoma bombing all over again if the alternative is to start giving up our Constitution. Freedom must be paid for in blood. You can't change that.
I certainly wouldn't. And I'm just as willing to die by a terrorists actions as I was to die in the US Navy at the hands of a foreign aggressor. In fact I see no real difference between dying one way or the other, either death is in service to our Constitution.
Absimiliard
Still, occurances like this make you question the validity of Slashdot poll results, no matter how significant or important the question.
Feh. I've questioned the validity of Slashdot polls for as long as I've been here.
Absimiliard
Nice reference.
(Bladerunner: [close captioned for the lame])
Absimiliard
Just because it's not that hard to change a tire, doesn't mean I easily dismiss the fact that someone took it upon themselves to slash it.
Man what a poor analogy. It's not like slashing the tire and thus forcing you to change it. It's more analogous to letting the air out of the tire and forcing you to re-inflate it.
Now I'm not defending the practice so everyone can point the flames elsewhere. I'm just pointing out a flawed analogy.
Absimiliard
That argument is really reaching.
Absimiliard
The post you replied to never once mentioned anything about abortion.
Why did you bring it up?
There oughta be a Godwin's Avenger for people who bring up abortion issues when they aren't involved in the discussion.
Absimiliard
I hereby invoke Godwin's Avenger on all of you for bringing up Nazis.
Now go away, if you allow this discussion to devolve into this sort of rhetoric neither you nor your opponent have any business continuing.
Neither of you are discussing, you are both merely expounding.
Absimiliard
First: If you feel strongly about it have the guts to post under your handle not as an Anonymous Coward.
Second (and last): Regarding anti-government statements. Ummmmm, free-speech? 1st Amendment? Where do you think we'd be if people weren't allowed to make anti-government statements? If you answer "Why we'd all be British colonists" then you got it totally right.
The right to disapprove of the government and point out it's flaws is crucial to a free nation. Without that right we might as well live in Russia, okay that's pure rhetoric and I apologize. But seriously we must be able to criticize the government and monitoring of all communications because of such criticism will exert the proverbial "chilling effect" on that criticism. The Supreme Court has already tackled that one.
Absimiliard
Naw, but you have to sit throught one of GW's speeches without falling asleep.
Dag! That's cold. I'd almost rather get the chair.
Absimiliard
Maybe some states have laws about the dirty 7 though, probably Texas.
Let me guess. Death penalty for violations. Right?!
Absimiliard
It just bugs me to have programmers consider their work to be the equal in expressiveness of Bach or Van Gogh or other, true, artists. Anyone can see that there's a world of difference.
I can accept that. I don't agree with you, but I can accept that you feel that way.
At least you are internally consistent. I'm not certain whether we differ in our axioms or in where we go from there.
Personally I can't see the world of difference. The Brandenburg Concertos for example are all variations on a single theme. (beautiful music as well of course) I would say that multiple programs to accomplish the same task are also simply variations on a theme. The implementation is what counts. Had Bach not been the author of the Concertos the variations might have sucked, had a good programmer not been the author of my hypothetical programs they might suck. Bach was great though, and the Concertos are magnificent art, and a good coder can weave art in the same manner.
It occurs to me that neither of us will convince the other. I believe I understand, and respect, your position even if I disagree with it. Hopefully you can understand mine, even if you disagree.
Fare well in your life Jon. No malice here, just discourse.
Absimiliard
Hey Jon.
Do you really believe this? Okay, I'm sure you do or you wouldn't have said it. It just sounds so unbelievable to me.
May I inquire if you are a coder yourself? If you are, why do you code? Do you just do it for money, or do you get some enjoyment from it? If you do it purely for money and it is nothing more than an exercise in assembling blocks then you would seem to have a pretty sucky job. If you enjoy coding then I would argue that in itself proves that there is art and expression involved.
If you don't code, then how can you presume to know this? Only a coder can state whether or not coding is art or expression. A non-coder making a categorical statement like yours is extreme hubris.
Personally I'm a network admin, my coding is pretty weak. Even I find that coding is an expression of my self when I do it. Given the vast number of different ways to accomplish one task I find the choices involved are very expressive. In fact I think that elegant, succint, aesthetic code is in fact an artistic expression. Take this with a grain of salt though. It is just my opinion.
Absimiliard
You know, I was tempted to moderate this down, but I couldn't find an appropriate category, besides which I felt compelled to reply.
How can you not advocate the ignorance of unjust laws. It's called 'civil disobedience' and it has gotten us civil rights and an end to slavery amongst other good things.
As for revolting versus an unjust government. Are you serious? How can such a revolution be wrong? When the government is immoral the moral have an obligation to overthrow it. Peacefully preferable, but violently if necessary. What sane person would advocate unjust tyrrany?
Of course the possibility exists that you were being sarcastic, in which case I merely didn't understand your sarcasm.
The other possibility is that you are a troll, in which case you got me. Reel me in, the hook was definitely taken.
Absimiliard
After all aiding and abetting is still a crime in the real world so why shouldn't it be one online?
Because telling someone where something illegal is to be found is neither aiding nor abetting a crime.
Now you can like or dislike that ruling, but the newspapers have hammered that issue out pretty solidly.
Our opinion doesn't matter in regards to it's legality.
Absimiliard
Jon, the question isn't whether or not you approve of MP3Board though. The question is whether linking to illegal material should be illegal.
You are perfectly within your rights to despise them. However, if the law follows real-life example in it's ruling on the Internet this shouldn't be illegal.
I would base this assessment on the fact that it is perfectly legal for me to say "why yes, you can buy crack from the yellow house at the corner of 3rd and Main." Is it ethical for me to do? Well that depends on whether I'm telling a police officer or a drug addict. But it is legal. Newspapers established that some time ago.
I see links as fundamentally similiar. They are merely pointers telling someone where to go. My saying "go to X for Y illegal activity" is not illegal in real life, so why should it be illegal on the internet?
That's why I say that you can love or hate MP3Board, but our personal feelings about the site should have nothing to do with whether or not they are illegal.
Absimiliard
Quoth Black Parrot
I wonder whether you can sue legislators who pass unconstitutional legislation. Clearly, they violate our civil rights whenever they do so.
I am afraid we can't. Speech on the floor on either Congressional house is, IIRC, about the most protected speech there is. You can say pretty much anything you want, about anything, for as long as you can stay awake, and be totally non-liable.
I hate to say it, but I think that's an important and good thing.
On the other hand I also think that Congress-things that propose blatantly un-constitutional laws are guilty of violating their oath of office. IIRC their oath, like my oath when I joined the military ever so long ago, requires them to "uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America."
If their speech wasn't protected we could probably prosecute them for violating that oath, or at least get them relieved of duty for such. Since their speech is in fact highly protected they're pretty much immune to any such challenge.
Is that good or bad? I just don't know. All these yutz, un-constitutional, laws are really bugging me. However, the protection of speech on the floor of Congress is really important. Destroying it might well be much worse than allowing it to continue even at the price of some bad laws.
Thank your gods, whomever they may be, that the Judicial Branch exists to strike down bad laws.
Absimiliard
There is at least one flaw in your point. (disclaimer: there may be more but I'm not interested in this enough to find them)
.com and .org are not US properties.
PETA did not own peta.org. Therefore there property was not taken. Therefore your analogy of me taking your clothes for a parody is not valid.
You can argue that they have a right to ALL peta.XXXXXXX sites all you want. But the fact is that they didn't own it at that time and current law doesn't give them the rights to all peta.XXXXXXXX names just because they happended to trademark PETA in the USA. Heck, what about peta.fi? Do they own it in Finland? (I have no idea if PETA is trademarked in Finland, so maybe they do.) Even if they do,
Absimiliard
. . . Copyright expires after some ungodly amount of time (in the US thank the Sonny Bono bill for that).
I believe that copyright never expires. Any time it seems like it will the owners of "the Mouse" spend some money, re-buy our/their congress-things, and extend copyright even further.
Given this I therefore surmise that copyright NEVER expires.
Dissenting views?
Absimiliard
The Wings of Honnemise (sp?): An excellent story about a race to put a man in orbit.
-
The Venus Wars: Enjoyable futuristic war story.
*Gundam*: See all of them. The Gundam series defined the 'Giant Robot' genre, and you'll get a kick out of seeing all the stock items in it.
Patlabor: Cool story about near future Japan and a revolt/rebellion in the worker robots. (Yes there's a lot more to it, but I ain't spoiling anyone here.)
Finally - Crying Freeman: A great story about the relationship between organized crime and the government. (Yes, I'm serious. And it's a must see)
In many of these instances the original material is Manga. Akira and Ghost in the Shell are also examples. When you find a Manga made into a movie expect that the movie will seem a bit disjointed, like it's missing something. This is because the movie is turning a huge multi-comic story into a teeny-weeny two hour movie. Imagine trying to fit Dune (Frank Herbert) into a two-hour movie, now recall how it turned out, now remember that Akira suffers EXACTLY the same problem.
Absimiliard
-----------------------------------------------
All sigs are lame, but mine is lamest sig of all