They're also a good investment. If I really don't think I need them, I can sell them. Until people quit wanting to kill each other, there will always be a demand. And if the demand really dries up, I won't cry about that either.
There's really now downside to having more weapons.
In the book I had, there were 6 brothers. One could hold his breath for a very long time, one could withstand great heat, one could swallow the ocean, one had a neck made of iron, etc.
The story started with the prince drowning, and sentence was passed on the brother. But, the authorities did not know there were 6 brothers, so when execution day came, the appropriate brother was sent to be killed.
If execution was to be by baking in an oven, they sent the brother could withstand heat. Beheading? Send the brother with the iron neck.
Eventually, the authorities realized they simply could not kill this man. To resolve the issue, they forgave the brother who could swallow the sea. They ruled the prince's death the prince's own fault, since the initial brother had only swallowed the sea at the prince's order.
Yup, that's the scientific method. An idea moves incrementally through these stages of surety until it is permanently enshrined as a "fact", and cannot be questioned.
Further, all ideas at any given stage are equal. So, the "theory" of evolution, as a "theory" is equal in scientific value to the "theory" of the flying spaghetti monster.
Finally, in order for science itself to be valid, all ideas at any given stage of elevation in science must be absolutely true and agreed to by every scientist. That is, the existance of two mutually exclusive theories, conflicting results from two different experiments, or contradictory facts (including facts which contradict "common sense") immediately invalidat all of science. The inability of scientists to satisfactorily resolve the "irresistable force / immovable object" dilemma is a good example of the fact that science is not scientifically valid.
Any discrepancy discovered or perceived between two scientific "facts" thus invalidates all of science. Further, discovery of a discrepancy automatically grants the discoverer the right to propose one alternative idea. This idea must be unquestioningly accepted by the public and voted into law.
Not "I refuse to follow your honor's order" (that would be contempt).
But "I do not know who my anonymous source it and I there is no way to determine who it is from the information I have."
Let's also assume that the reporter, plans to deny that he knows who the source really is. This is a fair assumption since the other alternative is to simply stonewall. Which he can already do.
Convincing the judge is the challenge. No matter what technical solution is applied, if the reporter can't convince the judge that he doesn't know the source's secret identity, the judge will find unpleasant ways to motivate the reporter's compliance.
Rubberhose comes to mind. Oooh, nifty, neato, keen. I won't tell and you can't make me! Nerds are saving the world from oppression. And thumbing our noses at authority. Ah, yes.
The technical solution is trivial. Work on the social part of the solution. How does the reporter convince the judge to leave him alone? Convince the judge he really doesn't know? It's hard to prove a negative. Convince the judge that the reporter has a right not to tell? Supreme court says no such right exists. And how does the source get the reporter not to rat her out just to save his own ass?
The current solution is to stonewall. To have reporters that are willing to go to jail to protect their sources and inform the public. That willingness deserves our respect.
Yes, I know. The reporter recently in the news DID NOT reveal the identity of the agent who was compromised. The reporter refused to identify a source to whom anonymity was promised. What is the value of a free press? The "fifth estate", the unelected branch of government is not a police force. I acknowledge these are issues worth discussing, but not what I'm concerned with in this post.
It devalues sex as a commodity and puts the woman's sexuality into her own control. In this context, killing the prostitute is not only acceptable, it's preferable. The prostitute is doing something wrong (taking control of her own sex), and gets punished. It's a morality play.
There are at least two schools of thought on this:
The authoritarian view is that the law is absolute. No infraction is acceptable and the importance of the law always trumps the importance of the individual.
In this case, the concept of an "unjust law" is meaningless. If the law says I can cause you harm, then I can do it. If the law requires you do something that is harmful or evil to you, then you must do it. If you disobey or complain, it's you, not the law who are wrong. The law is never wrong.
In the context of this particular discussion, collective punishment becomes significant. The idea is that some particular group of people, as a whole, is perceived to be bad for society. (again, avoiding the oh so tempting inflammatory examples!). When an individual member of that class is caught breaking the law, they are held accountable for the perceived harm caused by the entire class.
The absolutist view appeals to our sense of righteousness. Holding one idea and never under any circumstances questioning that idea gives us a sense of surety. (there's a word for that; can you name it?).The promise is that with perfect compliance we will have peace and safety. Give us, your leaders absoulte powers and provide those who we will point out for you these extreme penalties and we promise you safety, security, peace, and quiet.
What is delivered, however, is never perfect compliance. So we feel moral outrage. We were lied to! We know what's right, and it's the law. So, it must be the violator who is wrong. Obedience is an absolute.
The penalty for disobedience becomes retribution, not justice. The motive for this penalty is moral outrage, not concern for society. In this context, the harshest possible penalty is perfectly reasonable. And, as morally outraged people, we dissociate ourselves from the person we penalize. They are not like us. We can do anything we like to them. Our judgement will never be applied similarly to us because they are wrong and we are right.
The pragmatic view is that society can tolerate a certain amount of non-compliance from its individuals.
This non-compliance, beyond being simply tolerated, is valued and honored with terms like "civil disobedience" and "conscientious objection". When the law is no longer absolute, the term "unjust law" has meaning.
The idea here is that a violation of the law is a discrepancy between the perpetrator and the law. Maybe the perpetrator is wrong. Maybe the law is wrong.
Here, the justification for any penalty is the good of society. Do we punish this person for what he did? For what he might have done? For what he might do in the future? These are decisions that we have to make now--judgements, not application of an absolute forumla.
When we make these judgements, we must also realize that the person we are judging could be one of us. That person is, actually, one of us. The disobedient member of society is no longer a moral outcast, and that means that whatever penalty we pass on him could be applied to us. Maybe we do choose to penalize the individual. Maybe he has harmed us. But it's not quite so easy to dismiss our frustration by beating up on a guilty person.
This mindset considerably devalues obedience for the sake of obedience. In this view, law provides that if a violator causes harm he is punished. But, typically, if the harm is less significant, even if the law has been broken, the penalty is similarly light.
The cost to individual freedom is taken into account when laws are written. It is possible for the lawmaker to say "it costs more of our individual freedom than the value we get by controlling this behaviour." The law then provides some incentive for obedience, but disobedience is expected and largely tolerated.
The cost of this view is that the individuals, being placed
Words are tools. The corporation uses tools in its own interests, not yours. In the case of the weasel words, the corporation presents an image with no substance.
The purpose is to present an image to the casual observer. Words are selected for their appearance--"pro active", "standards compliant", "reorganization", etc. sound like action, consistency, and controlled change.
But they mean nothing. That's intentional. The corporation does not want to offer its detractors any ammunition for future attacks. "You said that..." Well, actually, we didn't say anything of the sort. Did we?
Do you seriously expect some organization to give you a clear commitment to anything without there being some significant benefit to them for doing so?
It's inconsistent with the corporation's fiduciary responsibility (look that one up, it's a real thing) to act in that manner. That is to say, if a corporate leader does things because "it's the right thing to do for the world/the customers/the industry", rather than "it makes more money for the stockholders and exposes the corporation to less risk", then they violate that responsibility.
At best, that violation is unethical. At worst, it's criminal.
One of two things is going on here--either the author didn't read what he agreed to (bad on him) or the magazine is trying to extort money from him. (Extortion is when I say "Pay me money or I'll do something bad to you (that I'm not allowed to do).") Threats to cause false negative information to show up on your credit rating are illegal. False information, people. They can threaten to put true information in there.
IANAL. You don't have to be a lawyer to stand up to petty intimidation. I've done this several times over the years (Omni magazine, an apartment rental agency, etc.). All you need to do is write two letters and (if you want to really be a hardass), get them (and your copy) notarized. If they're properly notarized, you can use, in court, the certified reciept to prove that the recipient actually received the letter of which you hold a copy.
First, write a letter referencing the collections notice, disputing the debt, and asking for a copy of the contract. Demand a reply within 7 days.
After the time period has elapsed, you may discover that the magazine has documentation that you've agreed to an automatic renewal (oops!). Cancel the subscription, pay the debt, and make sure you read your contract next time.
OTOH, if the magazine does not come up with the documentation of your debt, then there is no debt. Send another letter referencing the first letter. State that the subscription was terminated whenever it was terminated (you have to figure that out yourself. Probably when the last prepaid issue was delivered). Say that any alleged debt beyond that is fraud and will be reported to the office of the state's attorney general. Say that threats to credit reporting agencies are extortion and in violation of the FCRA and will also be reported. Find out who this is and include the approproate office address and phone number in the letter. There will be a consumer fraud division. Depending on the nature of the fraud and the state, there may be a specific office for your situation.
Yeah, it's only $12.00. But it's the principle. Don't be intimidated by thugs.
If you decide to defend yourself, don't let the "we'll put it on your credit report because we decided you owe it" intimidate you. Watch your credit report (you get free reports every year for $8.00, and there are 3 agencies use google) Send the same letters to both the credit reporting agency and the alleged creditor demanding documentation. Follow through.
I find the "I didn't know it wasn't free" excuse difficult to believe.
Especially since "Then the man noticed Dinon and snapped his computer shut." Kind of suggests that he was doing something he knew he shouldn't be.
What Smith was doing was illegal, he knew it was illegal, he got caught once by Dinon, and he kept on doing it.
Smith probably doesn't deserve to get the maximum penalty for simply using the access point. Like the prosecutor, I also wonder what, exactly, he was doing while online near Dinon's house? Once you've accessed the network, you've proven you can do it. Why stick around and risk being caught? Something was keeping him there.
Oh, yeah--this time it is theft. "Theft of computer services". In Florida, this falls under the larceny statutes. And the copyright violation analogy in TFA sucks.
I don't think anybody is seriously questioning whether one group or another attempts to argue an invalid point by deliberately manipulating the language.
The statement "It's piracy (unspoken: which is a bad thing and it's theft)" is false.
For your homework, go study the following logical fallacies, which you have either committed or defended: "Fallacy of dual definitions" "Manipulating the laguage" (look for the Orwellian context, not the programming context) "Appeal to authority"
Then look up, in your trusty OED "Connotation" "Denotation" and study these in the context of the multiple meanings of language.
Slashdot Mirror
Will go to $20.00 now?
When you have them, they're dangerous.
They're also a good investment. If I really don't think I need them, I can sell them. Until people quit wanting to kill each other, there will always be a demand. And if the demand really dries up, I won't cry about that either.
There's really now downside to having more weapons.
href="http://www.a4audio.com/cd-detail.asp?Catalo
The story started with the prince drowning, and sentence was passed on the brother. But, the authorities did not know there were 6 brothers, so when execution day came, the appropriate brother was sent to be killed.
If execution was to be by baking in an oven, they sent the brother could withstand heat. Beheading? Send the brother with the iron neck.
Eventually, the authorities realized they simply could not kill this man. To resolve the issue, they forgave the brother who could swallow the sea. They ruled the prince's death the prince's own fault, since the initial brother had only swallowed the sea at the prince's order.
An idea moves incrementally through these stages of surety until it is permanently enshrined as a "fact", and cannot be questioned.
Further, all ideas at any given stage are equal. So, the "theory" of evolution, as a "theory" is equal in scientific value to the "theory" of the flying spaghetti monster.
Finally, in order for science itself to be valid, all ideas at any given stage of elevation in science must be absolutely true and agreed to by every scientist. That is, the existance of two mutually exclusive theories, conflicting results from two different experiments, or contradictory facts (including facts which contradict "common sense") immediately invalidat all of science. The inability of scientists to satisfactorily resolve the "irresistable force / immovable object" dilemma is a good example of the fact that science is not scientifically valid.
Any discrepancy discovered or perceived between two scientific "facts" thus invalidates all of science. Further, discovery of a discrepancy automatically grants the discoverer the right to propose one alternative idea. This idea must be unquestioningly accepted by the public and voted into law.
Fucking morons.
But "I do not know who my anonymous source it and I there is no way to determine who it is from the information I have."
Let's also assume that the reporter, plans to deny that he knows who the source really is. This is a fair assumption since the other alternative is to simply stonewall. Which he can already do.
Convincing the judge is the challenge. No matter what technical solution is applied, if the reporter can't convince the judge that he doesn't know the source's secret identity, the judge will find unpleasant ways to motivate the reporter's compliance.
Rubberhose comes to mind. Oooh, nifty, neato, keen. I won't tell and you can't make me! Nerds are saving the world from oppression. And thumbing our noses at authority. Ah, yes.
The technical solution is trivial. Work on the social part of the solution. How does the reporter convince the judge to leave him alone? Convince the judge he really doesn't know? It's hard to prove a negative. Convince the judge that the reporter has a right not to tell? Supreme court says no such right exists. And how does the source get the reporter not to rat her out just to save his own ass?
The current solution is to stonewall. To have reporters that are willing to go to jail to protect their sources and inform the public. That willingness deserves our respect.
Yes, I know. The reporter recently in the news DID NOT reveal the identity of the agent who was compromised. The reporter refused to identify a source to whom anonymity was promised. What is the value of a free press? The "fifth estate", the unelected branch of government is not a police force. I acknowledge these are issues worth discussing, but not what I'm concerned with in this post.
Well, there was this one program. But nobody ever uses it. It's not even a real OS.
To what does the "fundamental freedoms" part of the Canadian Constitution apply?
Government?
Or people in general?
Any Canadian lawyers care to comment?
Let's hope each one takes them 20 minutes to process.
It devalues sex as a commodity and puts the woman's sexuality into her own control. In this context, killing the prostitute is not only acceptable, it's preferable. The prostitute is doing something wrong (taking control of her own sex), and gets punished. It's a morality play.
I understand that some have attained great skill in the application of this art...
Why do we have to sensationalize everything? It'd be a good science story if they just prsented the facts. Is this CNN or the freaking E chanel?
Morans.
Go ahead and put something at L1, L2, or L3. It won't be there for long.
-Benjamin Franklin
The authoritarian view is that the law is absolute. No infraction is acceptable and the importance of the law always trumps the importance of the individual.
In this case, the concept of an "unjust law" is meaningless. If the law says I can cause you harm, then I can do it. If the law requires you do something that is harmful or evil to you, then you must do it. If you disobey or complain, it's you, not the law who are wrong. The law is never wrong.
In the context of this particular discussion, collective punishment becomes significant. The idea is that some particular group of people, as a whole, is perceived to be bad for society. (again, avoiding the oh so tempting inflammatory examples!). When an individual member of that class is caught breaking the law, they are held accountable for the perceived harm caused by the entire class.
The absolutist view appeals to our sense of righteousness. Holding one idea and never under any circumstances questioning that idea gives us a sense of surety. (there's a word for that; can you name it?).The promise is that with perfect compliance we will have peace and safety. Give us, your leaders absoulte powers and provide those who we will point out for you these extreme penalties and we promise you safety, security, peace, and quiet.
What is delivered, however, is never perfect compliance. So we feel moral outrage. We were lied to! We know what's right, and it's the law. So, it must be the violator who is wrong. Obedience is an absolute.
The penalty for disobedience becomes retribution, not justice. The motive for this penalty is moral outrage, not concern for society. In this context, the harshest possible penalty is perfectly reasonable. And, as morally outraged people, we dissociate ourselves from the person we penalize. They are not like us. We can do anything we like to them. Our judgement will never be applied similarly to us because they are wrong and we are right.
The pragmatic view is that society can tolerate a certain amount of non-compliance from its individuals.
This non-compliance, beyond being simply tolerated, is valued and honored with terms like "civil disobedience" and "conscientious objection". When the law is no longer absolute, the term "unjust law" has meaning.
The idea here is that a violation of the law is a discrepancy between the perpetrator and the law. Maybe the perpetrator is wrong. Maybe the law is wrong.
Here, the justification for any penalty is the good of society. Do we punish this person for what he did? For what he might have done? For what he might do in the future? These are decisions that we have to make now--judgements, not application of an absolute forumla.
When we make these judgements, we must also realize that the person we are judging could be one of us. That person is, actually, one of us. The disobedient member of society is no longer a moral outcast, and that means that whatever penalty we pass on him could be applied to us. Maybe we do choose to penalize the individual. Maybe he has harmed us. But it's not quite so easy to dismiss our frustration by beating up on a guilty person.
This mindset considerably devalues obedience for the sake of obedience. In this view, law provides that if a violator causes harm he is punished. But, typically, if the harm is less significant, even if the law has been broken, the penalty is similarly light.
The cost to individual freedom is taken into account when laws are written. It is possible for the lawmaker to say "it costs more of our individual freedom than the value we get by controlling this behaviour." The law then provides some incentive for obedience, but disobedience is expected and largely tolerated.
The cost of this view is that the individuals, being placed
The purpose is to present an image to the casual observer. Words are selected for their appearance--"pro active", "standards compliant", "reorganization", etc. sound like action, consistency, and controlled change.
But they mean nothing. That's intentional. The corporation does not want to offer its detractors any ammunition for future attacks. "You said that..." Well, actually, we didn't say anything of the sort. Did we?
Do you seriously expect some organization to give you a clear commitment to anything without there being some significant benefit to them for doing so?
It's inconsistent with the corporation's fiduciary responsibility (look that one up, it's a real thing) to act in that manner. That is to say, if a corporate leader does things because "it's the right thing to do for the world/the customers/the industry", rather than "it makes more money for the stockholders and exposes the corporation to less risk", then they violate that responsibility.
At best, that violation is unethical. At worst, it's criminal.
Ewwww.
IANAL. You don't have to be a lawyer to stand up to petty intimidation. I've done this several times over the years (Omni magazine, an apartment rental agency, etc.). All you need to do is write two letters and (if you want to really be a hardass), get them (and your copy) notarized. If they're properly notarized, you can use, in court, the certified reciept to prove that the recipient actually received the letter of which you hold a copy.
First, write a letter referencing the collections notice, disputing the debt, and asking for a copy of the contract. Demand a reply within 7 days.
After the time period has elapsed, you may discover that the magazine has documentation that you've agreed to an automatic renewal (oops!). Cancel the subscription, pay the debt, and make sure you read your contract next time.
OTOH, if the magazine does not come up with the documentation of your debt, then there is no debt. Send another letter referencing the first letter. State that the subscription was terminated whenever it was terminated (you have to figure that out yourself. Probably when the last prepaid issue was delivered). Say that any alleged debt beyond that is fraud and will be reported to the office of the state's attorney general. Say that threats to credit reporting agencies are extortion and in violation of the FCRA and will also be reported. Find out who this is and include the approproate office address and phone number in the letter. There will be a consumer fraud division. Depending on the nature of the fraud and the state, there may be a specific office for your situation.
Yeah, it's only $12.00. But it's the principle. Don't be intimidated by thugs.
If you decide to defend yourself, don't let the "we'll put it on your credit report because we decided you owe it" intimidate you. Watch your credit report (you get free reports every year for $8.00, and there are 3 agencies use google) Send the same letters to both the credit reporting agency and the alleged creditor demanding documentation. Follow through.
Let's use some common sense, here people.
I find the "I didn't know it wasn't free" excuse difficult to believe.
Especially since "Then the man noticed Dinon and snapped his computer shut." Kind of suggests that he was doing something he knew he shouldn't be.
What Smith was doing was illegal, he knew it was illegal, he got caught once by Dinon, and he kept on doing it.
Smith probably doesn't deserve to get the maximum penalty for simply using the access point. Like the prosecutor, I also wonder what, exactly, he was doing while online near Dinon's house? Once you've accessed the network, you've proven you can do it. Why stick around and risk being caught? Something was keeping him there.
Oh, yeah--this time it is theft. "Theft of computer services". In Florida, this falls under the larceny statutes. And the copyright violation analogy in TFA sucks.
when they get old
Distribute some content.
Modify an open-source player to view it.
But add restrictions. Distribute the source, too (per GPL).
Accuse anybody who modifies the source AFTER you have added your restrictions of DMCA violations.
Demand that all further development of the project stop as it's in violation of DMCA.
...squeezing a motherboard into an object smaller than that motherboard...
"The tree of Liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and Patriots alike." - Thomas Jefferson.
The statement "It's piracy (unspoken: which is a bad thing and it's theft)" is false.
For your homework, go study the following logical fallacies, which you have either committed or defended:
"Fallacy of dual definitions"
"Manipulating the laguage" (look for the Orwellian context, not the programming context)
"Appeal to authority"
Then look up, in your trusty OED
"Connotation"
"Denotation"
and study these in the context of the multiple meanings of language.