No, I'm not free to do this - there's a civil liability in addition to the criminal action. That has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom means that it's not a criminal action. As someone else mentioned, your definition of freedom would make anyplace in the world "free".
There may be liabilities to my speech (i.e. if I tell the boss to go to hell I might lose my job), but the government won't be knocking down my door.
You're right, it does. I'll be over later to spray-paint a message on the side of your house.
See, the first amendment says that the government can't limit my speech. As a private property owner, however, you *can* limit my speech inasmuch as you have to pay for the forum. I'm free to buy my own house and spray-paint the side of it. But when I decide that someone else should foot the bill, that's not a free-speech issue.
Spammers cost other people millions of dollars, in aggregate. The only companies that any one spammer costs a bunch of money are the large AOL/Google/Hotmail/Yahoo types. However, they still cost everybody. People who own and operate mail servers should not have to pay for spam delivery, yet they do.
I'm mystified as to why a court would think the first amendment means that someone should have to pay for someone else's speech.
His team concluded that Neanderthal speech did not have the subtlety of modern human speech.
It's well-established in our cartoons and such that neanderthals often use the objective "me" rather than nominative "I", i.e. "me doug". Looks like the verb of being wasn't invented yet, either...
You do know that a portion of sales taxes goes to the retailer to pay for their collection costs, don't you?
In Indiana, yes, in Tennessee, no. And in Indiana, it's like 1% of the tax collected, which for a business like mine that does $1000 of taxable business in a quarter, I would make $4/year on that (at TN tax rate). Do I need to tell you how far that would go toward covering my expenses of collecting and remitting sales tax? In truth, I spend more money to deal with sales tax than the sales tax that I collect and remit.
If you'd rtfa, there's actually a picture of just such a sign attached to the article. Your point is valid, though, since that's probably the exception, definitely not the rule.
"Oh, I can get 50MB/s broadband here? Of course I'd love to live under this bridge...on the train tracks....next to the paper mill...downwind of the sewage treatment plant."
I'm missing something. The guy's at work, but he's selling part of his work product to someone else? I could see the university making this sort of a deal, but I'm not sure how the professor can claim rights to the work that the university is paying him for.
Did the submitter or editor even bother to read the article. The controversy is that the candidate *did* withdraw, but his name was left on some ballots. for those who can't click:
Perez withdrew one day after Franklin County had finalized its ballots. He had hoped to avoid playing spoiler in fellow Democrat Patsy Thomas' race to retain her appointment to the Franklin County Municipal Court.
Instead, Perez's name remained on the ballots -- or allegedly, most ballots -- and Republican David Tyack won.
Basically, same way Perot caused Bush #1 to lose in '92.
They probably also licensed music to use in the video, which was not licensed for that particular usage (i.e. dissemination over the internet). While the Air Force might not own the copyright, there may be copyrighted material in it.
Perhaps I should have clarified. "A single rooted filesystem with the ability to mount drives arbitrarily within that system". "\\localhost\c\foo" isn't terribly more useful than "C:\foo".
'I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography.'
It's also a positive thing for those of us looking to avoid ass-clowns and the companies that they run.
Re:Government Maps - of course
on
Open US GPS Data?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Yes, and TIGER is put together by the USGS, and it already *is* the "open source" data that the geniuses here are talking about. If you find an error, alert the USGS. I've done it myself - call their number and ask.
Now, as for the fantasy of people driving around with a gps attached to their car (ha ha, isn't that stupid!), um, oh:
"NAVTEQ digital map data is built on the roads of the world. Over seven hundred NAVTEQ field researchers from approximately 168 offices drive millions of kilometers of the road network each year. To provide uniformity and maximize precision each team works to a single global specification. And each team has state-of-the-art equipment, including our proprietary GPS-based collection technology and GWS software.
These field teams are constantly verifying and updating the database, not only in terms of road geometry, but also in details. Each team finds and records up to 260 attributes--everything from addresses and road signs to turn restrictions--for each segment of road. The result is the NAVTEQ difference: digital map data that is precise, robust and multifaceted."
There's no pretense; Navteq has people driving around, with gps's, verifying speed limits, road conditions, etc. That's why companies like Google and Yahoo buy their data. Before you act like an ass, you might want to do some rudimentary fact-checking...
Dude, I understand how a weighted clock works (the weights don't just power the timing mechanism, they powers the clock, sometimes with different weight sets to power the chimes), but, I'm sorry, this just isn't that different. It's like seeing the various patents for doing obvious things, but "on the internet". Using weights to provide power is a *very* old concept, and that's all this is.
And this, sadly, is why I can't trust Lessig to do this. I really liked the guy, but then I recently saw a writing where he was talking about this as if it were a Republican problem. Seriously, anyone who thinks this has to do with the Republican party (alone) is unfit to talk about change, since they're oblivious to what's going on. Note that pork has increased with the Democrats taking over Congress.
Anyone who thinks this is a problem of the last 8 years is either blindly partisan or not paying attention. Either way, they don't have what it takes to talk about change.
There's a world of difference between "slowing traffic down" and spoofing rst packets. I don't mind them slowing down huge downloads or whatever to allow faster web browsing. That's not the issue at hand. I can't use bittorrent to download legal torrents. *That* is the issue at hand.
Trying to change the subject isn't going to help them.
It's not a treadmill if you actually cover ground.
Not necessarily. To extend your analogy, I can still cover 2-3 feet on a treadmill while making it look like I'm running. That's what we're dealing with here.
What bothers me is the fact that Forbes can't write a positive article about Apple. They always have to be the spoiler, trying to find the pit instead of the tasty cherry. It's the same thing that bothers me about open source in general.
Okay, that actually is what bothers me about Forbes. You'd think after looking like complete and utter fools for letting Dan Lyons keep writing false, misleading, or just stupid articles about Linux with respect to the SCO farce, they would rein him in a bit. Instead, he starts acting like a complete ass yet again with the fake Steve Jobs thing. The negativity that they have toward any non-Microsoft (and non-SCO, as it were) software is bizarre.
Forbes should be a credible source of news, but given their level of maturity in reporting in areas for which I have a high degree of knowledge, I wouldn't trust them in any other category. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not free to do this - there's a civil liability in addition to the criminal action. That has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom means that it's not a criminal action. As someone else mentioned, your definition of freedom would make anyplace in the world "free".
There may be liabilities to my speech (i.e. if I tell the boss to go to hell I might lose my job), but the government won't be knocking down my door.
Being president of my HOA, trust me when I say that I'm just making an example. If someone did that in our neighborhood it wouldn't be allowed.
You're right, it does. I'll be over later to spray-paint a message on the side of your house.
See, the first amendment says that the government can't limit my speech. As a private property owner, however, you *can* limit my speech inasmuch as you have to pay for the forum. I'm free to buy my own house and spray-paint the side of it. But when I decide that someone else should foot the bill, that's not a free-speech issue.
Spammers cost other people millions of dollars, in aggregate. The only companies that any one spammer costs a bunch of money are the large AOL/Google/Hotmail/Yahoo types. However, they still cost everybody. People who own and operate mail servers should not have to pay for spam delivery, yet they do.
I'm mystified as to why a court would think the first amendment means that someone should have to pay for someone else's speech.
Please never get married - at least not until you understand why "his life is his own business" is so terribly wrong.
I see it's time to update Godwin's law...
It's well-established in our cartoons and such that neanderthals often use the objective "me" rather than nominative "I", i.e. "me doug". Looks like the verb of being wasn't invented yet, either...
In Indiana, yes, in Tennessee, no. And in Indiana, it's like 1% of the tax collected, which for a business like mine that does $1000 of taxable business in a quarter, I would make $4/year on that (at TN tax rate). Do I need to tell you how far that would go toward covering my expenses of collecting and remitting sales tax? In truth, I spend more money to deal with sales tax than the sales tax that I collect and remit.
If you'd rtfa, there's actually a picture of just such a sign attached to the article. Your point is valid, though, since that's probably the exception, definitely not the rule.
So, how to you like Terre Haute, Indiana?
I'm missing something. The guy's at work, but he's selling part of his work product to someone else? I could see the university making this sort of a deal, but I'm not sure how the professor can claim rights to the work that the university is paying him for.
Did the submitter or editor even bother to read the article. The controversy is that the candidate *did* withdraw, but his name was left on some ballots. for those who can't click:
Basically, same way Perot caused Bush #1 to lose in '92.
They probably also licensed music to use in the video, which was not licensed for that particular usage (i.e. dissemination over the internet). While the Air Force might not own the copyright, there may be copyrighted material in it.
how many times people keep "discovering" the same thing. This has been on /. at least twice in the past.
Everything you need to know:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html
More:
http://jalopnik.com/335832/traffic-jam-mystery-solved-++-blame-the-wave
People need to do a simple google search before starting research.
We're still trying to get people to rtfa, there's little else to fail.
I dunno, why not ask the people who had to leave Greenland when it froze over 500 years ago...
Perhaps I should have clarified. "A single rooted filesystem with the ability to mount drives arbitrarily within that system". "\\localhost\c\foo" isn't terribly more useful than "C:\foo".
A rooted filesystem would help, too, along with a reasonable "fork", but at some point you just have a crappy, Microsoft version of Unix. Why bother?
It's also a positive thing for those of us looking to avoid ass-clowns and the companies that they run.
Yes, and TIGER is put together by the USGS, and it already *is* the "open source" data that the geniuses here are talking about. If you find an error, alert the USGS. I've done it myself - call their number and ask.
Now, as for the fantasy of people driving around with a gps attached to their car (ha ha, isn't that stupid!), um, oh:
http://www.navteq.com/about/whatis_difference.html
"NAVTEQ digital map data is built on the roads of the world. Over seven hundred NAVTEQ field researchers from approximately 168 offices drive millions of kilometers of the road network each year. To provide uniformity and maximize precision each team works to a single global specification. And each team has state-of-the-art equipment, including our proprietary GPS-based collection technology and GWS software.
These field teams are constantly verifying and updating the database, not only in terms of road geometry, but also in details. Each team finds and records up to 260 attributes--everything from addresses and road signs to turn restrictions--for each segment of road. The result is the NAVTEQ difference: digital map data that is precise, robust and multifaceted."
There's no pretense; Navteq has people driving around, with gps's, verifying speed limits, road conditions, etc. That's why companies like Google and Yahoo buy their data. Before you act like an ass, you might want to do some rudimentary fact-checking...
Dude, I understand how a weighted clock works (the weights don't just power the timing mechanism, they powers the clock, sometimes with different weight sets to power the chimes), but, I'm sorry, this just isn't that different. It's like seeing the various patents for doing obvious things, but "on the internet". Using weights to provide power is a *very* old concept, and that's all this is.
How is this any different than a clock powered by weights? It's nice, but hardly a new idea.
And this, sadly, is why I can't trust Lessig to do this. I really liked the guy, but then I recently saw a writing where he was talking about this as if it were a Republican problem. Seriously, anyone who thinks this has to do with the Republican party (alone) is unfit to talk about change, since they're oblivious to what's going on. Note that pork has increased with the Democrats taking over Congress.
Anyone who thinks this is a problem of the last 8 years is either blindly partisan or not paying attention. Either way, they don't have what it takes to talk about change.
There's a world of difference between "slowing traffic down" and spoofing rst packets. I don't mind them slowing down huge downloads or whatever to allow faster web browsing. That's not the issue at hand. I can't use bittorrent to download legal torrents. *That* is the issue at hand.
Trying to change the subject isn't going to help them.
Not necessarily. To extend your analogy, I can still cover 2-3 feet on a treadmill while making it look like I'm running. That's what we're dealing with here.
What bothers me is the fact that Forbes can't write a positive article about Apple. They always have to be the spoiler, trying to find the pit instead of the tasty cherry. It's the same thing that bothers me about open source in general.
Okay, that actually is what bothers me about Forbes. You'd think after looking like complete and utter fools for letting Dan Lyons keep writing false, misleading, or just stupid articles about Linux with respect to the SCO farce, they would rein him in a bit. Instead, he starts acting like a complete ass yet again with the fake Steve Jobs thing. The negativity that they have toward any non-Microsoft (and non-SCO, as it were) software is bizarre.
Forbes should be a credible source of news, but given their level of maturity in reporting in areas for which I have a high degree of knowledge, I wouldn't trust them in any other category. Ever.
It's pathetic.