Actually, That's incorrect -- the current standard for federal regulation of free speech, set by the courts in Brandenberg vs. Ohio, states, "speech must not only be advocacy to inciteimminent lawless action, but also there must be a likelihood that such action will occur."
Therefore, the mere advocacy of violent overthrow (a la the communist party, which advocates a violent revolution against the capitalist government) is not illegal -- it is the advocacy with the intent to incite imminent lawless action. Nor is "Damnit, that guy should be shot for being so stupid" unprotected -- because there isn't a likelihood that a reasonable person will actually follow the instructions.
... I'm curious why I got modded down as offtopic and troll. The first post was sarcasm.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
Regardless, the argument that freedom of speech trumps freedom of privacy I think is flawed. Freedom of speech doesn't cover exposing all the details of someone's life on the internet.
So, I could find your:
Address(es)
Phone Number
Name
Spouse's Name
Relatives
Etc... You wouldn't appreciate it either, trust me.
I just don't get it. Call me dumb, but I don't understand these laws... or how they think they get away from them.
Whatever the administration thinks, they have not killed individual rights / privacy advocates. Yes, the threat of being called 'terrorists' or branded as something near has silenced some of them, since 9/11 and the "War on Terror."
However... think Marx's socialist revolution. Eventually, if the people get their ideals, hopes, and dreams pushed down too much, they will rebel. I believe that it is only a matter of time before people get fed up with having the government destroying their privacy. And we will have a semi-revolution. Eventually, people will decide this isn't good for them. And opposing it isn't unpatriotic, or terrorism, or whatever the brand happens to be at that time.
Eventually, you take away enough, and people realize they have nothing left to lose.
Yes, if we could trust the government, that might work. But when our politicians lie, cheat, steal, murder, and do these things without even the slightest qualm over ethics, who protects us?
We do, with the power of our courts and laws. Listen to Pink Floyd's The Wall sometime. You might learn something.
By the way, telling everyone that they should 'shut up and deal with it' is arrogant as hell.
What kind of implications does this have for pirated software? Are we going to see validity checks for OS software?
Forgive my ignorance, it's too close to some companies' attempts to have 'validation' chips for music and DVDs, etc.
Fear is control
I have a question, forgive me for my ignorance of the legality of DVD licensing, but... isn't this a bit of... umm... bullshit? I mean you buy the DVD, and yet, the OS you use has to pay to license a product to play it? That's absurd...
How exactly is it legal for them to restrict WTF you do with YOUR property, as long as you aren't illegally copying or distributing it?
fearincontrol
Almost. The choice is between people who want to keep the rich rich and damn the poor to all hell (Republicans) and the ones who want to distribute it (Democrats).
First of all, don't generalize me as a 'linux-hating trendy high school kid'....
I'll concede, perhaps your post wasn't against microsoft. When I first read it, it was AFTER reading most of the other articles on this page, a lot of which are bullcrap. I use linux on 2/3 machines, the other of which I keep windows so I can keep my wife happy. So no, I don't dislike linux, nor do I like microsoft -- wrong on both assumptions.
However, every time a microsoft article comes up, I see the same 400,000/. posters BASHING microsoft, basically saying 'to hell with justice, it's MICROSOFT, i hope they all die!'
It's stupid. We can't promote free internet if we justify the use of wide-ranging patent chokeholds like this.
I don't want to see this decision used in the future. It could very much destroy everything that a free internet is about. Internet regulation is the new thing for governments to do. The EU passing laws that violate free speech on the internet; Special Interests (IE media companies) pouring billions in to getting acts like the DMCA and CBDTPA passed. The last thing we need are for wide-ranging, absurd patents to become mainstream.
To the original poster: I'm sorry for stereotyping you. It was a long day, and I was tired of reading the same 'BURN IN HELL MS!' posts over and over. I threw you in with the crowd, by mistake.
I'm sorry, how exactly does anything bad for MS = good for the people?
Another person who despises MS enough to not listen to reason. It IS a double standard. If MS tried to do this to another company, you guys would be screaming bloody murder.
I don't like microsoft. But you can't apply a double standard to them because you have personal problems. That's like me saying that he can kill you, but you can't kill him because I don't like you.
If only all of our people thought like you, we'd have an Aryan race by now.
A ruling in favor of Eolus would be TERRIBLE for browser competition. It would conclude that companies can exclude certain others from using their software. Everything 'bad for microsoft' is NOT 'good for the people', or vice versa. I'm sure a lot of people are perfectly happy with the microsoft products they own. Linux isn't for everyone; some people may genuinely like and enjoy windows.
You're short-sighted and ignorant. You can't apply a double standard to anything, otherwise you throw all the principles of law and justice in to the trashcan. With a double standard, bush could allow X company to do something, while X company couldn't. God knows we don't need to give Bush another excuse to pay back favors to special interests.
In essence: Shove It.
Okay, first off, I don't like microsoft. At all. However, Why are you guys so happy that these patents are going against microsoft, when wide-ranging and debilitating software patents are what all free programmers desire??
You guys need to take another look at this issue. This stupid microsoft hypocrisy is just that: Stupid. If this case is won by Eolas, it could be a precedent for hundreds more cases of wide-ranging software patents that will absolutely destroy competition in the software market.
You think the market with microsoft is bad now? If Eolas wins this case, you'll be begging for today's software world back.
lol, Your allegations are absurd... I don't like microsoft. Quite the opposite, I think often they try to have a monopoly on the entry-level user OS market. However, everyone yells "OMG OMG OMG OMG its MICROSOFT!! They should all be crucified!!" That's called stupidity. You want a common scapegoat? How about the fact that posters like YOU on/. make me wish we had a forced IQ test before you could post.
Personally, if Microsoft tried to do this to Netscape, for example, you'd all be crying OMG OMG OMG burn them!!! MS can't do this! Yet since it's being done to microsoft, you don't care? as I said, I don't like microsoft. But a double standard is the bullshit that the bush administration is trying to pull, I hate having to read about it on/. too.
I don't back up my claims when they're based on what I consider to be common knowledge.
Common knowledge according to whom? It depends largely on who you ask. Some people might give credibility to your 50% number, some might say it is too low, some too high. The point is that there is no definite proof... No common knowledge either. I'm hardly ignorant, as you seem to want to portray me. As for the Bush quote, he is in full support of a war with Iraq. of course he's going to say that refusing to attack Iraq will be the downfall of the US. That's still his OPINION. He can't prove that, nor is it neccesarily true just because he's the president. After all, a democrat could be president too, and you hardlining conservatives dismiss everything they say out of hand. The same is true for Bush. He's not neccesarily right because he's the president.
Restraint is a sign of weakness and is a big, bright GREEN LIGHT for groups waiting to attack. Cowardice to use our own weapons is akin to self-disarmament.
I beg to differ. Quite a large percentage of attacks are in retaliation for US action in the general region that that terrorists come from. I hardly think restraint is a bad thing in this situation, especially considering the fact that the international community has yet to endorse the war on Iraq. Though some people may favor saying,,!,, to the rest of the world, others believe that keeping a good standing with the rest of the world is probably a good idea. I happen to be one of those; I think completely disregarding the will of the international community here could lead to serious counter-action against the US.
The main point about Democrats is that they appear to be doing more that encourages terrorism than that which prevents it. They appear to view conservatives as greater enemies than terrorists whose primary goal in life is to destroy us.
I don't think this is true at all. Though the democrats are more cautious about going to war, they aren't endorsing or supporting terrorism. There's a difference between caution and endorsement. It's not even one of those fine-line scenarios.
As the proverbial saying goes: Discretion is the Better part of valor.
I think this will exacerbate the problem of wireless network insecurity. Though a well-designed network is relatively secure, 99.9% of the networks I know of have weak wireless security. A four mile range access point will definately hurt more than it helps; even with the relatively short range they are now security is a major risk.
I'll be interested to see if wireless security becomes a bigger issue if this technology becomes mainstream.
I'm sorry, but I can't resist a reply to this.
Your accusations are absurd! Let me just take a few:
The opening shots of World War III may have already occurred. (It's hard to interpret history when you're in the midst of it.) Conservatives are trying to cajole the nation into doing what must be done for our survival.
Trying to do what is neccesary for our survival? And who exactly defines 'what is neccesary for our survival?'... For all we know attacking Iraq could be the downfall of the United States. Please don't make baseless claims that the conservatives are doing 'what is neccesary for our survival. Not to mention you don't provide one iota of support for your claim. I'll be happy to both listen to and aknowledge whatever points you would like to make, but only if you have a clue what you're talking about. Until you prove you do, I'll assume you don't.
Democrats are campaigning from Baghdad, apparently holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein, a supporter of al-Qaeda and a bona fide terrorist himself.
Holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein? LOL. I seriously doubt you could find anyone in a public office in the United States who supported Saddam. Some of them may not be anxious to sacrifice thousands of American lives for a war we may not even need to fight, but assuredly they aren't 'in bed' with Baghdad. Not to mention that there is no proof, NONE, that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al Qaeda. Now, whether or not he's a terrorist... probably. It depends on your definition, but some of the things he's done to the Kurds were terrible. I hardly support him.
The relevance of the first two issues should be obvious, but SS is important too and not just to old people. If current policies remain, income taxes will have to be increased to 50% to keep SS afloat.
I'd like to see a bit of proof of this. Because there really isn't any. No one at this time has even a remote idea exactly what's going to happen.
As a final parting note, please, I'm sure we'll be happy to debate you on your right-wing ideals --- just try to support them. Unsupported, biased, non-factual statements presented as facts tend to destroy your credibility.
This ranks up with the CBDTPA as the most absurd legislation of the twentieth century. There are so many loopholes around this law it's stupid, not to mention the fact that banning a port to try and stop any certain service is stupid -- as has been pointed out, it's not exactly amazingly difficult to change the port used by the program.
*clap clap* I think Panama secretly elected GWB. This is exactly the kind of ignorant decision he's famous for.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, That's incorrect -- the current standard for federal regulation of free speech, set by the courts in Brandenberg vs. Ohio, states, "speech must not only be advocacy to incite imminent lawless action, but also there must be a likelihood that such action will occur."
Therefore, the mere advocacy of violent overthrow (a la the communist party, which advocates a violent revolution against the capitalist government) is not illegal -- it is the advocacy with the intent to incite imminent lawless action. Nor is "Damnit, that guy should be shot for being so stupid" unprotected -- because there isn't a likelihood that a reasonable person will actually follow the instructions.
... I'm curious why I got modded down as offtopic and troll. The first post was sarcasm.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
Regardless, the argument that freedom of speech trumps freedom of privacy I think is flawed. Freedom of speech doesn't cover exposing all the details of someone's life on the internet.
So, I could find your:
Address(es)
Phone Number
Name
Spouse's Name
Relatives
Etc... You wouldn't appreciate it either, trust me.
First Post!
But... yes. You can't apply a double standard anywhere or the whole system breaks down.
I just don't get it. Call me dumb, but I don't understand these laws... or how they think they get away from them.
Whatever the administration thinks, they have not killed individual rights / privacy advocates. Yes, the threat of being called 'terrorists' or branded as something near has silenced some of them, since 9/11 and the "War on Terror."
However... think Marx's socialist revolution. Eventually, if the people get their ideals, hopes, and dreams pushed down too much, they will rebel. I believe that it is only a matter of time before people get fed up with having the government destroying their privacy. And we will have a semi-revolution. Eventually, people will decide this isn't good for them. And opposing it isn't unpatriotic, or terrorism, or whatever the brand happens to be at that time.
Eventually, you take away enough, and people realize they have nothing left to lose.
/shrug it's all good
Yes, if we could trust the government, that might work. But when our politicians lie, cheat, steal, murder, and do these things without even the slightest qualm over ethics, who protects us? We do, with the power of our courts and laws. Listen to Pink Floyd's The Wall sometime. You might learn something. By the way, telling everyone that they should 'shut up and deal with it' is arrogant as hell.
What kind of implications does this have for pirated software? Are we going to see validity checks for OS software?
Forgive my ignorance, it's too close to some companies' attempts to have 'validation' chips for music and DVDs, etc.
Fear is control
I have a question, forgive me for my ignorance of the legality of DVD licensing, but... isn't this a bit of... umm... bullshit? I mean you buy the DVD, and yet, the OS you use has to pay to license a product to play it? That's absurd...
How exactly is it legal for them to restrict WTF you do with YOUR property, as long as you aren't illegally copying or distributing it?
fearincontrol
Too much power in the hands of the president.
Almost. The choice is between people who want to keep the rich rich and damn the poor to all hell (Republicans) and the ones who want to distribute it (Democrats).
I'm sorry, thanks for playing, try again...
First of all, don't generalize me as a 'linux-hating trendy high school kid'....
/. posters BASHING microsoft, basically saying 'to hell with justice, it's MICROSOFT, i hope they all die!'
It's stupid. We can't promote free internet if we justify the use of wide-ranging patent chokeholds like this.
I'll concede, perhaps your post wasn't against microsoft. When I first read it, it was AFTER reading most of the other articles on this page, a lot of which are bullcrap. I use linux on 2/3 machines, the other of which I keep windows so I can keep my wife happy. So no, I don't dislike linux, nor do I like microsoft -- wrong on both assumptions.
However, every time a microsoft article comes up, I see the same 400,000
I don't want to see this decision used in the future. It could very much destroy everything that a free internet is about. Internet regulation is the new thing for governments to do. The EU passing laws that violate free speech on the internet; Special Interests (IE media companies) pouring billions in to getting acts like the DMCA and CBDTPA passed. The last thing we need are for wide-ranging, absurd patents to become mainstream.
To the original poster: I'm sorry for stereotyping you. It was a long day, and I was tired of reading the same 'BURN IN HELL MS!' posts over and over. I threw you in with the crowd, by mistake.
I'm sorry, how exactly does anything bad for MS = good for the people?
Another person who despises MS enough to not listen to reason. It IS a double standard. If MS tried to do this to another company, you guys would be screaming bloody murder.
I don't like microsoft. But you can't apply a double standard to them because you have personal problems. That's like me saying that he can kill you, but you can't kill him because I don't like you.
If only all of our people thought like you, we'd have an Aryan race by now.
A ruling in favor of Eolus would be TERRIBLE for browser competition. It would conclude that companies can exclude certain others from using their software. Everything 'bad for microsoft' is NOT 'good for the people', or vice versa. I'm sure a lot of people are perfectly happy with the microsoft products they own. Linux isn't for everyone; some people may genuinely like and enjoy windows.
You're short-sighted and ignorant. You can't apply a double standard to anything, otherwise you throw all the principles of law and justice in to the trashcan. With a double standard, bush could allow X company to do something, while X company couldn't. God knows we don't need to give Bush another excuse to pay back favors to special interests.
In essence: Shove It.
Typo, I know... Wide ranging and debilitating software patents are what all free programmers hate...
Sorry, it must've been earlier than I thought.
Okay, first off, I don't like microsoft. At all. However, Why are you guys so happy that these patents are going against microsoft, when wide-ranging and debilitating software patents are what all free programmers desire??
You guys need to take another look at this issue. This stupid microsoft hypocrisy is just that: Stupid. If this case is won by Eolas, it could be a precedent for hundreds more cases of wide-ranging software patents that will absolutely destroy competition in the software market.
You think the market with microsoft is bad now? If Eolas wins this case, you'll be begging for today's software world back.
No, but if MS held the patent you'd be screaming for free technology. You're another hypocritical /. reader.
I hate reading this double standard bullshit ad nauseam.
lol, Your allegations are absurd... I don't like microsoft. Quite the opposite, I think often they try to have a monopoly on the entry-level user OS market. However, everyone yells "OMG OMG OMG OMG its MICROSOFT!! They should all be crucified!!" That's called stupidity. You want a common scapegoat? How about the fact that posters like YOU on /. make me wish we had a forced IQ test before you could post.
Personally, if Microsoft tried to do this to Netscape, for example, you'd all be crying OMG OMG OMG burn them!!! MS can't do this! Yet since it's being done to microsoft, you don't care? as I said, I don't like microsoft. But a double standard is the bullshit that the bush administration is trying to pull, I hate having to read about it on /. too.
I don't back up my claims when they're based on what I consider to be common knowledge.
,,!,, to the rest of the world, others believe that keeping a good standing with the rest of the world is probably a good idea. I happen to be one of those; I think completely disregarding the will of the international community here could lead to serious counter-action against the US.
Common knowledge according to whom? It depends largely on who you ask. Some people might give credibility to your 50% number, some might say it is too low, some too high. The point is that there is no definite proof... No common knowledge either. I'm hardly ignorant, as you seem to want to portray me. As for the Bush quote, he is in full support of a war with Iraq. of course he's going to say that refusing to attack Iraq will be the downfall of the US. That's still his OPINION. He can't prove that, nor is it neccesarily true just because he's the president. After all, a democrat could be president too, and you hardlining conservatives dismiss everything they say out of hand. The same is true for Bush. He's not neccesarily right because he's the president.
Restraint is a sign of weakness and is a big, bright GREEN LIGHT for groups waiting to attack. Cowardice to use our own weapons is akin to self-disarmament.
I beg to differ. Quite a large percentage of attacks are in retaliation for US action in the general region that that terrorists come from. I hardly think restraint is a bad thing in this situation, especially considering the fact that the international community has yet to endorse the war on Iraq. Though some people may favor saying
The main point about Democrats is that they appear to be doing more that encourages terrorism than that which prevents it. They appear to view conservatives as greater enemies than terrorists whose primary goal in life is to destroy us.
I don't think this is true at all. Though the democrats are more cautious about going to war, they aren't endorsing or supporting terrorism. There's a difference between caution and endorsement. It's not even one of those fine-line scenarios.
As the proverbial saying goes: Discretion is the Better part of valor.
I think this will exacerbate the problem of wireless network insecurity. Though a well-designed network is relatively secure, 99.9% of the networks I know of have weak wireless security. A four mile range access point will definately hurt more than it helps; even with the relatively short range they are now security is a major risk. I'll be interested to see if wireless security becomes a bigger issue if this technology becomes mainstream.
Dangit, my spacing got messed up... blah. Oh well.
I'm sorry, but I can't resist a reply to this. Your accusations are absurd! Let me just take a few: The opening shots of World War III may have already occurred. (It's hard to interpret history when you're in the midst of it.) Conservatives are trying to cajole the nation into doing what must be done for our survival. Trying to do what is neccesary for our survival? And who exactly defines 'what is neccesary for our survival?'... For all we know attacking Iraq could be the downfall of the United States. Please don't make baseless claims that the conservatives are doing 'what is neccesary for our survival. Not to mention you don't provide one iota of support for your claim. I'll be happy to both listen to and aknowledge whatever points you would like to make, but only if you have a clue what you're talking about. Until you prove you do, I'll assume you don't. Democrats are campaigning from Baghdad, apparently holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein, a supporter of al-Qaeda and a bona fide terrorist himself. Holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein? LOL. I seriously doubt you could find anyone in a public office in the United States who supported Saddam. Some of them may not be anxious to sacrifice thousands of American lives for a war we may not even need to fight, but assuredly they aren't 'in bed' with Baghdad. Not to mention that there is no proof, NONE, that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al Qaeda. Now, whether or not he's a terrorist... probably. It depends on your definition, but some of the things he's done to the Kurds were terrible. I hardly support him. The relevance of the first two issues should be obvious, but SS is important too and not just to old people. If current policies remain, income taxes will have to be increased to 50% to keep SS afloat. I'd like to see a bit of proof of this. Because there really isn't any. No one at this time has even a remote idea exactly what's going to happen. As a final parting note, please, I'm sure we'll be happy to debate you on your right-wing ideals --- just try to support them. Unsupported, biased, non-factual statements presented as facts tend to destroy your credibility.
Oops, lol.
This ranks up with the CBDTPA as the most absurd legislation of the twentieth century. There are so many loopholes around this law it's stupid, not to mention the fact that banning a port to try and stop any certain service is stupid -- as has been pointed out, it's not exactly amazingly difficult to change the port used by the program. *clap clap* I think Panama secretly elected GWB. This is exactly the kind of ignorant decision he's famous for.