Uhh, Microsoft is a prime example of why letting a single player dominate a given market is a bad thing. We get shitty buggy software and no true alternative (yeh linux is a viable, but not practical alternative).
But those children will produce taxes. Having your slaves reproduce is a good thing. Sure, those kids may end up in prison costing tax dollars, but the chances are they will not end up in prison their entire lives, and will produce more in taxes than they cost. Those are just the odds. That's why the "state has an interest" in preventing an abortion once a fetus reaches the point of viability, per Roe v. Wade.
Assumption of risk is no defense. It used to be, but courts have forgone the doctrine because people are just too stupid to knowingly (that's the magic word) assume a risk, whether it be assuming the risk of injury by smoking cigarettes or by playing russian roulette with an "empty" gun. People need to be protected from themselves, and making everything idiotproof and banning that which cannot be made idiotproof is the only way to save people. Human life come first, because human lives pay taxes, and healthy functional humans tend to earn more, thus paying more taxes.
stupid people are easier to control. there is a direct correlation between stupidity and ability to brainwash. the RIAA is smart to do this... if only we could get idiotfuck christians to protest against this "evolution" being taught in our schools.
The DMA, our worst domestic terror organization, has finally been stifled thanks to the bipartisan efforts of congress. Hopefully its 5,000 members can now be captured, tarred and feather, and executed. We truly are winning the war on terror.
No, it's a "time, place, manner" regulation and the content is not the issue at all. Even if you're giving away the cure for cancer and pill that gives infinite wisdom for free, you don't have the right to email me about it unless we had a previous arrangement. Spam is not about content, it's about the delivery method. I'll spare you a speech on first amendment "time, place, manner" restrictions, let's just say they're done very often. Public streets are very useful for speech, like parades and protests, but the government can force you to get a permit (as long as anyone can get one) and only have your parade at certain times on certain days. That's not infringing free speech. It's infringing a method of speech. Wanna celebrate your gayness but can't get a permit until next month? Go make a webpage for the meantime.
Besides which, email is a very useful medium for speech
Not when you have to filter everything for spam. It then becomes pretty darn useless for anything, let alone speech. Some argue that email is already useless (there was a slashdot article on this very topic a month or two ago which I'm too lazy to search for, but you can).
The First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states:
1. Congress shall make no law that interferes with a successful business model.
2. Congress shall have the power, notwithstanding any other provisions within this Constitution or its several Amendments, to preserve all successful business models by whatever means necessary.
3. The rights and interests of businesses shall not be infringed. America recognizes that human rights stem from corporate freedom.
4. Taxation shall not be considered a violation of a business's rights or interests.
5. Involuntary, unpaid slavery shall not be considered a business model for purposes of this Amendment.
sorry if this has already been mentioned (redundant) but if there's an autorun.exe on the disc that installs shackleware on the computer which prevents you from ripping or whatever... just turn off that wonderful 'feature' so the autorun never gets a chance to do its thing. Note: disabling autoinsert notification may be a DMCA violation as of today.
It's not banning advertising, it's banning a form of advertising. If you have penis pills to sell, there are countless other ways to go about doing so.
If extreme pervasiveness (a big problem) is not relevant to whether a form of speech is constitutionally protected, then neither should the fact that children are "hurt" in the making of kiddie porn have anything to do with whether kiddie porn is constitutionally protected.
It is safe to say junk physical mail is opt-out while spam is opt-in. Junk mail is much less pervasive because it costs 37 cents to send a letter. Flooding your mailbox with 100 letters would be cost prohibitive. Sending a spam costs nothing. Flooding your inbox with 100000 emails is not only cost prohibitive, it's good marketing strategy. Spam hurts and ruins the system, junk mail doesn't (or at least not nearly as much). The bottom line is spam is much more pervasive and its costs greatly outweigh its benefits (of which there are none). The presumption should be no spam can be sent unless requested. Unsolicited=unlawful.
No, that's protected by copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret laws. It's so protected it never even sees the light of day. If only spam were like that.
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit," wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another." Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728
I mention this simply because spammers will say they have a first amendment right to annoy you because a form of 'speech' is involved, which is bullshit, kinda like how I don't have a first amendment right to stand on your lawn yelling advertisements with a loudspeaker 24/7, even though speech is involved. The first amendment doesn't mean anything is legal so long as some form of speech is in the mix. Spam is illegitimate, unprotected speech--much like kiddie porn and threats of violence.
You hint at the issue here. We didn't pay for it, we paid for a "license" to use it in whatever way the license allows (and not in the ways it doesn't). This is the problem... until sales are treated like sales, no matter what some "license" purports to say or limit, we'll never be free of the bullshit. If I buy a CD, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. I should be able to share it with whomever I desire, sell it, rent it, perform it publicly (i.e. play it in my store), or crush it up, boil it in a spoon, and inject it (but that's a completely different issue for another day....) As long as people act like the CD/DVD/Software really ISN'T yours (lose it and ask for another one... you didn't lose the nontransferable license after all... they'll do a 180 and start treating it like what it is--a product that you buy and own, fuck the license shit).
but... this is to protect the children
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 1
so it must be good. if you're against this, you must be a child-raping pedophile. our precious children are our most valuable resource.
new fields of study are always arising. so by your logic, the DDC will never be in the public domain as long as categories are added to it. By this logic, as long as someone uses/markets their invention, patent protection should be perpetual and the idea should never be public domain. I vehemently disagree.
The jewish neocons support the overall movement because one goal is to protect israel. The christian neocons believe israel should be for the jews, as the bible says, because when jesus comes back (from the dead), all the jews are supposed to be there to either convert or die and go to hell (there are no jews in heaven according to the neocon evangelical christians). Now, as a jew, one should be pragmatic... support these guys who want to use the greatest military power in history to protect Israel... but only until a dead guy returns from the grave. Now, the chances of a dead guy returning from the grave are not only small, they are 0. So, if I were bill kristol or paul wolfowitz, I would support the "protect israel" movement too. I don't think these guys realize that eventually they are gonna be sent to concentration camps somewhere in al Aba-ma for not accepting jesus christ as their lord and savior.
Neoconservatives are the people like Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. who believe in a global pax americana... that america must dominate and control the world. And, in the process, christianize everyone.
1) The Patriot Act was not approved by congress, because they never saw it. Everyone was threated to pass it or be accused of supporting terrorists. Limp-writsted congresspeople fell for that, and thus we have the Patriot Act.
2) Aggressively enforcing the law is one thing, but twisting the law to apply to situations it was not intended for is totally different. Using the Patriot Act to indict drug dealers as terrorists dealing in WMD's (meth = "chemical weapon" bullshit we talked about here recently) is dispicable and NOT what the law was intended to do.
3) Congress approved the war on false pretenses. The Bush admin (and I voted for this guy, I'm not a foaming at the mouth democrat by any means) lied about the reasons for war. Apparently the only WMD's are here in America, in the houses of drug dealers. Not anywhere near iraq, unfortunately. The entire report given to the UN was plaigarized, and falsified documents were used to make the case for war.
In sum, there is plenty to complain about. And let's see how aggressively Ashcroft enforces the laws he doesn't like, such as Roe v. Wade. Oh wait, he's thus far flat out refused to enforce it, making getting an abortion in this country even harder... borderline impossible. I thought Reno was the worst AG we'd ever have... but Bush outdid clinton with Ashcroft.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, Microsoft is a prime example of why letting a single player dominate a given market is a bad thing. We get shitty buggy software and no true alternative (yeh linux is a viable, but not practical alternative).
But those children will produce taxes. Having your slaves reproduce is a good thing. Sure, those kids may end up in prison costing tax dollars, but the chances are they will not end up in prison their entire lives, and will produce more in taxes than they cost. Those are just the odds. That's why the "state has an interest" in preventing an abortion once a fetus reaches the point of viability, per Roe v. Wade.
Assumption of risk is no defense. It used to be, but courts have forgone the doctrine because people are just too stupid to knowingly (that's the magic word) assume a risk, whether it be assuming the risk of injury by smoking cigarettes or by playing russian roulette with an "empty" gun. People need to be protected from themselves, and making everything idiotproof and banning that which cannot be made idiotproof is the only way to save people. Human life come first, because human lives pay taxes, and healthy functional humans tend to earn more, thus paying more taxes.
stupid people are easier to control. there is a direct correlation between stupidity and ability to brainwash. the RIAA is smart to do this... if only we could get idiotfuck christians to protest against this "evolution" being taught in our schools.
It's in there, trust me, you just have to read between the lines.
The DMA, our worst domestic terror organization, has finally been stifled thanks to the bipartisan efforts of congress. Hopefully its 5,000 members can now be captured, tarred and feather, and executed. We truly are winning the war on terror.
my fault, i forgot to visually note my sarcasm.
No, it's a "time, place, manner" regulation and the content is not the issue at all. Even if you're giving away the cure for cancer and pill that gives infinite wisdom for free, you don't have the right to email me about it unless we had a previous arrangement. Spam is not about content, it's about the delivery method. I'll spare you a speech on first amendment "time, place, manner" restrictions, let's just say they're done very often. Public streets are very useful for speech, like parades and protests, but the government can force you to get a permit (as long as anyone can get one) and only have your parade at certain times on certain days. That's not infringing free speech. It's infringing a method of speech. Wanna celebrate your gayness but can't get a permit until next month? Go make a webpage for the meantime.
Besides which, email is a very useful medium for speech
Not when you have to filter everything for spam. It then becomes pretty darn useless for anything, let alone speech. Some argue that email is already useless (there was a slashdot article on this very topic a month or two ago which I'm too lazy to search for, but you can).
It's better to spend taxpayer money and make one company rich (which helps the stock market) than save taxpayer money and make nobody rich. Duh.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states:
1. Congress shall make no law that interferes with a successful business model.
2. Congress shall have the power, notwithstanding any other provisions within this Constitution or its several Amendments, to preserve all successful business models by whatever means necessary.
3. The rights and interests of businesses shall not be infringed. America recognizes that human rights stem from corporate freedom.
4. Taxation shall not be considered a violation of a business's rights or interests.
5. Involuntary, unpaid slavery shall not be considered a business model for purposes of this Amendment.
Yes, but as of today doing so would be a DMCA violation. (no smiley face)
sorry if this has already been mentioned (redundant) but if there's an autorun .exe on the disc that installs shackleware on the computer which prevents you from ripping or whatever... just turn off that wonderful 'feature' so the autorun never gets a chance to do its thing. Note: disabling autoinsert notification may be a DMCA violation as of today.
It's not banning advertising, it's banning a form of advertising. If you have penis pills to sell, there are countless other ways to go about doing so.
If extreme pervasiveness (a big problem) is not relevant to whether a form of speech is constitutionally protected, then neither should the fact that children are "hurt" in the making of kiddie porn have anything to do with whether kiddie porn is constitutionally protected.
It is safe to say junk physical mail is opt-out while spam is opt-in. Junk mail is much less pervasive because it costs 37 cents to send a letter. Flooding your mailbox with 100 letters would be cost prohibitive. Sending a spam costs nothing. Flooding your inbox with 100000 emails is not only cost prohibitive, it's good marketing strategy. Spam hurts and ruins the system, junk mail doesn't (or at least not nearly as much). The bottom line is spam is much more pervasive and its costs greatly outweigh its benefits (of which there are none). The presumption should be no spam can be sent unless requested. Unsolicited=unlawful.
If you say stop sending me this mail, the sender will have to do so.
No, that's protected by copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret laws. It's so protected it never even sees the light of day. If only spam were like that.
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit," wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another." Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728
I mention this simply because spammers will say they have a first amendment right to annoy you because a form of 'speech' is involved, which is bullshit, kinda like how I don't have a first amendment right to stand on your lawn yelling advertisements with a loudspeaker 24/7, even though speech is involved. The first amendment doesn't mean anything is legal so long as some form of speech is in the mix. Spam is illegitimate, unprotected speech--much like kiddie porn and threats of violence.
Yep, buttons with letters on them. How innovative. I wonder how many patents this "idea" has already received....
You hint at the issue here. We didn't pay for it, we paid for a "license" to use it in whatever way the license allows (and not in the ways it doesn't). This is the problem... until sales are treated like sales, no matter what some "license" purports to say or limit, we'll never be free of the bullshit. If I buy a CD, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. I should be able to share it with whomever I desire, sell it, rent it, perform it publicly (i.e. play it in my store), or crush it up, boil it in a spoon, and inject it (but that's a completely different issue for another day....) As long as people act like the CD/DVD/Software really ISN'T yours (lose it and ask for another one... you didn't lose the nontransferable license after all... they'll do a 180 and start treating it like what it is--a product that you buy and own, fuck the license shit).
so it must be good. if you're against this, you must be a child-raping pedophile. our precious children are our most valuable resource.
/sarcasm off
new fields of study are always arising. so by your logic, the DDC will never be in the public domain as long as categories are added to it. By this logic, as long as someone uses/markets their invention, patent protection should be perpetual and the idea should never be public domain. I vehemently disagree.
The jewish neocons support the overall movement because one goal is to protect israel. The christian neocons believe israel should be for the jews, as the bible says, because when jesus comes back (from the dead), all the jews are supposed to be there to either convert or die and go to hell (there are no jews in heaven according to the neocon evangelical christians). Now, as a jew, one should be pragmatic... support these guys who want to use the greatest military power in history to protect Israel... but only until a dead guy returns from the grave. Now, the chances of a dead guy returning from the grave are not only small, they are 0. So, if I were bill kristol or paul wolfowitz, I would support the "protect israel" movement too. I don't think these guys realize that eventually they are gonna be sent to concentration camps somewhere in al Aba-ma for not accepting jesus christ as their lord and savior.
Neoconservatives are the people like Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. who believe in a global pax americana... that america must dominate and control the world. And, in the process, christianize everyone.
It's far from a libertarian.
Well, a few points:
1) The Patriot Act was not approved by congress, because they never saw it. Everyone was threated to pass it or be accused of supporting terrorists. Limp-writsted congresspeople fell for that, and thus we have the Patriot Act.
2) Aggressively enforcing the law is one thing, but twisting the law to apply to situations it was not intended for is totally different. Using the Patriot Act to indict drug dealers as terrorists dealing in WMD's (meth = "chemical weapon" bullshit we talked about here recently) is dispicable and NOT what the law was intended to do.
3) Congress approved the war on false pretenses. The Bush admin (and I voted for this guy, I'm not a foaming at the mouth democrat by any means) lied about the reasons for war. Apparently the only WMD's are here in America, in the houses of drug dealers. Not anywhere near iraq, unfortunately. The entire report given to the UN was plaigarized, and falsified documents were used to make the case for war.
In sum, there is plenty to complain about. And let's see how aggressively Ashcroft enforces the laws he doesn't like, such as Roe v. Wade. Oh wait, he's thus far flat out refused to enforce it, making getting an abortion in this country even harder... borderline impossible. I thought Reno was the worst AG we'd ever have... but Bush outdid clinton with Ashcroft.