You could also try and get your bank prosecuted under disability or misleading-advertising laws in your jurisdiction (as well as checking any local industry codes of conduct for violations).
I agree with the bit you quoted which has a lot of scientific backing (though you say he must be a "loony bin" becuase you disagree with him).
Anyway, I have a copy and it is a really good book to keep on your desk for those times that you want to get something done quickly without working it out for yourself.
If you are a proprietary software company who illegally copies copylefted (or even other proprietary) code into your work, VCSs leave a chain of evidence ready to be subpoenaed by the court when the FSF et al get wind of your activities.
I'm afraid you are wrong as far as US law is concerned. There is a string of US case law precedent for non-US and US citizens been convictable for things that are unlawful in the USA but not where they committed them.
The US government and judiciary believe that there laws are universal, therefore people can be (and have been) extradited to the US for breaking US law without even having set foot on US soil.
Actually, if you look at this logically the problem is humans think; we learn about the world (discover knowledge and technology that could be used for either good or evil); we have free will.
Therefore I think the only answer is that we should all have our brains removed and replaced by cybernetic control devices controlled by the US's fascist dictator, George W. Bush.
All technology and scientific knowledge (from the wheel to the PC) can be used for both good and evil. Some people use it for evil but most use it for good.
Should we now be made criminals for learning knowledge or thinking up ideas? This could only happen in the fascist US of A really; I'm so glad I don't live there.
But the government won't use this law against big companies (who give them all those nice fat brown envelopes), just any individual citizen who dares to use their first-amendment rights.
Well, I think net. is still used mainly for what it was meant for (because why would someone cause confusion by not using it that way). Whenever I see a net. domain it seems to be an ISP (or the email domian for one) (excepting groklaw.net which I guess uses that because it is a community).
If the domain names have no meaning, then why have them at all? Anyway (excepting org., net. and com. you have to fit certain criteria to get them as opposed to just being supposed to).
.com registry expires in 2007 (according to the court judgement in Verisign v. ICANN).
My point is that ICANN seem to think they have to be overly nice to Verisign in the.net bidding because of the.com argument. But, surely, if Verisign have violated their.com contract, that is a valid reason not to give them the.net contract?
Not to mention that Apple with their stupid prices, lock-in and proprietary closed hardware are ethically worse than either Microsoft or IBM. Their OS X is IMO very slow and has a bad UI design too.
Why exactly can't ICANN take into account the fact that Verisign broke their last contract (in a way that screwed around with the whole Internet and made Verisign lots of $$$) when deciding whether to give them the next contract? What do they decide the contract on then?
Yes, it does semi-automatically install things like Macromedia Flash that are non-free, but I don't see that as a problem.
I was talking about things like the artwork (all non-free wrt copyright) and the talkback agent software. Also, the (invalid?) contract one must agree to (which is extremely limiting if you read it).
(I have used Firefox since before 0.1 and think it is the best WWW browser out there BTW, however it is shifting somewhat to be more proprietary and IMO I'm getting a feeling that MF care less about users/developers since 1.0 and more about advertising their org--I could be wrong. I am also confident that Firefox can be fully liberated in the future which is partly why I don't want to discuss this too much.)
Actually, parent has a good point (if that is the case). I was not familiar enough with the signing technology to know that they specifically do not set the evil bit.
I understand that perfectly. It is most of the other people in this thread that don't (which is why I was pointing it out). Although, I should point out that it doesn't really act as authentication properly either (as explained im my other posts).
I see your logic: these people give money to Verisign (who we all know are a very ethical company) so they must be good so software they give away must not damage my PC. Actually, no, I don't see your logic.
Slashdot Mirror
That's http://getfirefox.com BTW.
You could also try and get your bank prosecuted under disability or misleading-advertising laws in your jurisdiction (as well as checking any local industry codes of conduct for violations).
So all your buddies are on MSN (and you 0only have them on there)...hmmmm...
Anyway, I have a copy and it is a really good book to keep on your desk for those times that you want to get something done quickly without working it out for yourself.
The first edition is available on his WWW site.
If you are a proprietary software company who illegally copies copylefted (or even other proprietary) code into your work, VCSs leave a chain of evidence ready to be subpoenaed by the court when the FSF et al get wind of your activities.
Hmm..wasn't there almost the same story last week.
No. This isn't just about the Internet. The US should outlaw all forms of thought and speech.
In fact I think the US constitution is a circumvention devices thefore all copies should be burned...hmmm....wait...
The US government and judiciary believe that there laws are universal, therefore people can be (and have been) extradited to the US for breaking US law without even having set foot on US soil.
Therefore I think the only answer is that we should all have our brains removed and replaced by cybernetic control devices controlled by the US's fascist dictator, George W. Bush.
Sorry, I'll stop giving the US gov. ideas...
Should we now be made criminals for learning knowledge or thinking up ideas? This could only happen in the fascist US of A really; I'm so glad I don't live there.
Don't forget the widespread use of public domain or illegal copied works in the making of Hollywood films.
I am so glad I'm not in the US of A.
It was the other way round. Read the contract. Also, two courts don't seem to agree with you.
If the domain names have no meaning, then why have them at all? Anyway (excepting org., net. and com. you have to fit certain criteria to get them as opposed to just being supposed to).
My point is that ICANN seem to think they have to be overly nice to Verisign in the .net bidding because of the .com argument. But, surely, if Verisign have violated their .com contract, that is a valid reason not to give them the .net contract?
It was originally for network infrastructure (e.g.: ISPs, registrars).
Not to mention that Apple with their stupid prices, lock-in and proprietary closed hardware are ethically worse than either Microsoft or IBM. Their OS X is IMO very slow and has a bad UI design too.
Why exactly can't ICANN take into account the fact that Verisign broke their last contract (in a way that screwed around with the whole Internet and made Verisign lots of $$$) when deciding whether to give them the next contract? What do they decide the contract on then?
I was talking about things like the artwork (all non-free wrt copyright) and the talkback agent software. Also, the (invalid?) contract one must agree to (which is extremely limiting if you read it).
(I have used Firefox since before 0.1 and think it is the best WWW browser out there BTW, however it is shifting somewhat to be more proprietary and IMO I'm getting a feeling that MF care less about users/developers since 1.0 and more about advertising their org--I could be wrong. I am also confident that Firefox can be fully liberated in the future which is partly why I don't want to discuss this too much.)
In no way does the fact that Verisign thinks the name of the person who said it might be safe is X because that person payed them $$$ mean it is safe.
Actually, parent has a good point (if that is the case). I was not familiar enough with the signing technology to know that they specifically do not set the evil bit.
I understand that perfectly. It is most of the other people in this thread that don't (which is why I was pointing it out). Although, I should point out that it doesn't really act as authentication properly either (as explained im my other posts).
I see your logic: these people give money to Verisign (who we all know are a very ethical company) so they must be good so software they give away must not damage my PC. Actually, no, I don't see your logic.
There is no `perhaps' in the grandparent.