...or maybe they genuinely didn't know which candidate was the best (or thought they were all bad), so didn't vote at all.
Would the government be better if everyone donkey voted or if a only some vote but after talking to all the candidates and decide who would be best for them?
If people are forced to vote (as in Aus), or they force themselves to, then you get really stupid people in charge and people tend to vote for incumbents (or major parties).
This is particularly a problem with the SMDP system where you are forced to only choose one candidate (whic his tougher and a bad decision is worse) and your vote may count disproportionately.
Of course, having made that caveat, it really is a lot better if nearly everyone votes (after informing themselves of the candidate's policies) and this is the least of the problems with SMDP.
web search strings alone. No identifying information at all.
I'm not particularly interested in this case (in its effect on private indivduals is limited and I don't live over the pond), so I haven't researched what the US gov asked for.
However, assuming you are right, are you going to volunteer your time to the massive effort make sure there is no idenitifable information in there? Oh wait, then you would be looking at people's private data.
Anyway, how do you decide what might be identifiable, especially when the government combines the data set with others from ISP/police/medical/&c records.
The real point here is, unless they have some justification in law, it is none of the government's business to make a company to expend time and effort to provide the government with their commercially sensitive records for the government to do god knows what with. Ever heard of "[t]he right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures"?
I was going to say if that's treason then this guy definitely is committing treason.
However, article 3, section 3 of the constitution states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Although this is probably morally equivalent, I don't think it comes under this crime.
By definition, where a minority (the police) controls a majority, the minority will be more immoral and criminal (assuming you think morals are based on what society thinks, and not, say, some all-knowing deity).
Also, "TRUTH" is what the police are most scared of. The group that has the strongest anonymity (and care most vehemently about their anonymity), the strongest right to hide the truth and the strongest powers to lie unchecked are the police. Clearly, logically, it should be the other way round to balance out the fact that the police are more immoral than the general population.
I know a lot of people^Wpolice are concerned about the lack of police powers and immunity, but my response to that is, if the police aren't doing anything criminal (uhhh...like putting cameras in peoples homes), why would they need special powers of arrest, immunity from prosecution, or surveillance and cover-up powers?
Also as they are our servants shouldn't all officers on duty (or at any time they can use their special powers or are working) have bugs and cameras on them with cameras all over the police station connected to a video feed on the WWW.
This would be fine if MS didn't use criminal uncompetitive practices to pervert the market. They got themselves a near monopoly by Mafia-style behaviour, and they make sure that old versions have no support, get malware or are incompatible, so everyone has to upgrade.
That's not true in the UK where I believe Cory is currently residing. In fact, it is more like the defendant having to prove that what they said was true.
I don't think Google Video caches videos from the WWW. I think it just allows copyright holders to upload their own videos to Google Video.
Google Images is just a version of the normal Google SE that only brings up images. It doesn't do any more caching than Google does anyway (when caching both text and images), not that whether the content is stored as an image or text is relevant.
It is probably unfair to say that Linus was being unreasonable, as that comment seemed just like a quick passing remark about the current draft to me (i.e.: Linus didn't mean what he literally said; he probably was just talking about the draft as it stands).
But I don't know; maybe he does feel his ego has been wounded by the FSF somehow, so wants to disagree with anything they suggest on principle or is trying to wind them up.
However, I'm not sure what he is going on about private keys for. There's no real change in spirit in the GNU GPL v3 draft from v2 on this; it is just more explicit. AFAICC, evelopers would only have to give over their private keys if they were using others GPLed work in their software which they were distribtuing binaries for, didn't want to fall foul of copyright law and refused to provide the source code except encrypted using their private keys (which, of course, would not happen). Is Linus saying that he doesn't think all the Linux source should be available to everyone?
>>they went for the big boys. Straight for the top.
Ye, the GVU. Their website was down when the police seized their servers. Apparently they keep their warez/moviez on their main website servers. I'd expect better covering up of their involvement (as a protection racket for both the `piracy' industry and the copyright holders) from a branch of the MPAA.
3) They are going to charge for support with understanding their unreadable code
4) They are going sue people for using the code outside of the terms of their copyright license
Also, the court needs to escalate the penalties. 2M/day is petty cash for MS; the court should freeze all their assets until they have some documentation.
They are not in court for being a monopoly (which would just mean that people liked their products so much that no one else could get into the market--nothing wrong with that), but for uncompetitive practices and leveraging a near-monopoly to create a monopoly in other areas.
MS release the source code (not the documentation--the court said source code was no good)
MS charge competitiors for copies of the code
MS charge competitors for help understanding the code (which even MS themselves couldn't clearly explain 12 000 pages)
competitors use the code or something similar to it in their software
MS sues competitors for copyright violation (and maybe patents)
Profit!
Oh, yes! They've got this all worked out, except the little bit where the court says "you've been messing about for a year. If you dont give us documentation (a concept clearly alien to MS), you cannot do business in the EU. Bye, bye."
They weren't forced to this. The court told them to release documentation and, specifically, not source code. MS instead decide to release the source code and charge for copies then, no doubt, sue anyone who uses it.
That's the evil plan. They have refused to release documentation in violation of the sentence handed down to them by the court (for criminal uncompetitive practices)* then:
MS release the source code (not the documentation--the court said source code was no good)
MS charge competitiors for copies of the code
MS charge competitors for help understanding the code (which even MS themselves couldn't clearly explain 12 000 pages)
competitors use the code or something similar to it in their software
MS sues competitors for copyright violation
Profit!
Oh, yes! They've got this all worked out.
* I hope the court freezes their assets in the EU.
>>The existence of those laws is partly predicated on a mistaken belief that moral and ethics do not concern companiesshouldn't concern them. Just that public companies are legally defined in such a way that they musn't take morals into account.
They are also defined in such a way that long-term profit doesn't matter. Shareholders don't care about making the companies long-term good or profitable, they care about playing the market to get short-term gain in their stock the selling them.
If the morals that are in a public company by the directors conflict with making as much money as possible, the directors are breaking the law.
Anyway, it is right that companies cannot be moral as they are not sentient and don't even exist in the physical world anymore than "intellectual property".
It doesn't matter so much that people don't want freedom for its own sake as long as they realise that freedom is what is making the software:
cheaper
designed to do what the users actually need and able to cater to a wider range of needs specific to certain types of user
with a range of UIs/frontends designed to be easy for different users regardless of different physical, linguistic, or mental abilities in different areas, levels of familiarity or look-and-feel preferences
less likely to break, easier to fix and able to be fixed by more people
Most importantly if it is free and falls down on any of the above criteria in any way anyone can do something themselves to make it cheaper, do what they need, easier or not break.
Slashdot Mirror
The game is really educational for your kids BTW (if you want them to make loads of money when they're older, or go insane).
Would the government be better if everyone donkey voted or if a only some vote but after talking to all the candidates and decide who would be best for them?
If people are forced to vote (as in Aus), or they force themselves to, then you get really stupid people in charge and people tend to vote for incumbents (or major parties).
This is particularly a problem with the SMDP system where you are forced to only choose one candidate (whic his tougher and a bad decision is worse) and your vote may count disproportionately.
Of course, having made that caveat, it really is a lot better if nearly everyone votes (after informing themselves of the candidate's policies) and this is the least of the problems with SMDP.
However, assuming you are right, are you going to volunteer your time to the massive effort make sure there is no idenitifable information in there? Oh wait, then you would be looking at people's private data.
Anyway, how do you decide what might be identifiable, especially when the government combines the data set with others from ISP/police/medical/&c records.
The real point here is, unless they have some justification in law, it is none of the government's business to make a company to expend time and effort to provide the government with their commercially sensitive records for the government to do god knows what with. Ever heard of "[t]he right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures"?
Sun was the last dot in ".com." actually.
However, article 3, section 3 of the constitution states:
Although this is probably morally equivalent, I don't think it comes under this crime.Also, "TRUTH" is what the police are most scared of. The group that has the strongest anonymity (and care most vehemently about their anonymity), the strongest right to hide the truth and the strongest powers to lie unchecked are the police. Clearly, logically, it should be the other way round to balance out the fact that the police are more immoral than the general population.
Also as they are our servants shouldn't all officers on duty (or at any time they can use their special powers or are working) have bugs and cameras on them with cameras all over the police station connected to a video feed on the WWW.
Those are serious questions.
In the Soviet USA, the police watch YOU!
MS software generally is a lot worse than betas from elsehwere or even your average alpha nightly builds.
This really is a feautre..not a bug.
This would be fine if MS didn't use criminal uncompetitive practices to pervert the market. They got themselves a near monopoly by Mafia-style behaviour, and they make sure that old versions have no support, get malware or are incompatible, so everyone has to upgrade.
That's not true in the UK where I believe Cory is currently residing. In fact, it is more like the defendant having to prove that what they said was true.
Google Images is just a version of the normal Google SE that only brings up images. It doesn't do any more caching than Google does anyway (when caching both text and images), not that whether the content is stored as an image or text is relevant.
But I don't know; maybe he does feel his ego has been wounded by the FSF somehow, so wants to disagree with anything they suggest on principle or is trying to wind them up.
However, I'm not sure what he is going on about private keys for. There's no real change in spirit in the GNU GPL v3 draft from v2 on this; it is just more explicit. AFAICC, evelopers would only have to give over their private keys if they were using others GPLed work in their software which they were distribtuing binaries for, didn't want to fall foul of copyright law and refused to provide the source code except encrypted using their private keys (which, of course, would not happen). Is Linus saying that he doesn't think all the Linux source should be available to everyone?
>>they went for the big boys. Straight for the top.
Ye, the GVU. Their website was down when the police seized their servers. Apparently they keep their warez/moviez on their main website servers. I'd expect better covering up of their involvement (as a protection racket for both the `piracy' industry and the copyright holders) from a branch of the MPAA.
3) They are going to charge for support with understanding their unreadable code
4) They are going sue people for using the code outside of the terms of their copyright license
Also, the court needs to escalate the penalties. 2M/day is petty cash for MS; the court should freeze all their assets until they have some documentation.
They are not in court for being a monopoly (which would just mean that people liked their products so much that no one else could get into the market--nothing wrong with that), but for uncompetitive practices and leveraging a near-monopoly to create a monopoly in other areas.
Oh, yes! They've got this all worked out, except the little bit where the court says "you've been messing about for a year. If you dont give us documentation (a concept clearly alien to MS), you cannot do business in the EU. Bye, bye."
They weren't forced to this. The court told them to release documentation and, specifically, not source code. MS instead decide to release the source code and charge for copies then, no doubt, sue anyone who uses it.
Oh, yes! They've got this all worked out.
* I hope the court freezes their assets in the EU.
Same in Firefox (since 0.1 I think).
>>The existence of those laws is partly predicated on a mistaken belief that moral and ethics do not concern companiesshouldn't concern them. Just that public companies are legally defined in such a way that they musn't take morals into account.
They are also defined in such a way that long-term profit doesn't matter. Shareholders don't care about making the companies long-term good or profitable, they care about playing the market to get short-term gain in their stock the selling them.
This is all common sense really.
Anyway, it is right that companies cannot be moral as they are not sentient and don't even exist in the physical world anymore than "intellectual property".
Most importantly if it is free and falls down on any of the above criteria in any way anyone can do something themselves to make it cheaper, do what they need, easier or not break.
That is why they use redirect URIs sometimes in SERPs and probably why a Google developer added the ping feature to Firefox.