You are right, but every time I see the term "gay rights", I roll my eyes. There are no "gay rights". At least those involved in integration (who mattered) didn't call it "black rights" or even "racial rights", but "civil rights". I'm pretty sure civil rights, properly interpreted, covers everything.
Everyone is due the right to conduct their personal affairs, which are absolutely no business of society, free from authorities spying, interfering, and punishing, whether those authorities are the government, the workplace, an organized religion, or anyone else.
There is an issue of public health, and it is a very messy and tendentious one, but this should never target by group identification. It's too easy to end up with laws just as stupid and evil as those against "impaired driving". The wrongdoing isn't impaired driving, it's incompetent driving, incompetent for WHATEVER REASON, but even then only as a condition in an event which involves injury to other people and destruction of their property. Otherwise no wrong has been done to anyone.
Exactly. Well, actually the Poles did a bit more than just what you give them credit for. They created their own reverse-engineered enigma machines (or "doubles", or "bombes"; it is not entirely clear to me which term is the most accurate) and eventually furnished them to the British.
Also, I have a reservation about the usage "cracked" or "broke" such-and-such cipher. Terms like these imply that you do the work once, and then the ciphertext is effortlessly deciphered from then on. In actuality, it is not nearly that straightforward. The British (with American help) had to "crack" enigma messages every day of the war in a vast continuing effort. Tools and techniques were developed that remained instrumental, but everything was back on the table constantly. To me the continuing success of that operation was the true miracle of ultra. The whole thing just made the Germans look like babes in the wood. The operation involving Turing, a number of other geniuses who are never properly recognized, and a host of incredibly dedicated and wonderfully clever lower level workers ceaselessly toiling on the most exhausting work, was transcendently brilliant.
There is no reason to pardon him. Apologize for making a bad law sure, but pardon no. It was illegal at the time, and there were no exigent circumstances requiring him to break the law for the public good. There is really no reason to offer a pardon.
Really? "The public good" is your (only) measure of whether exercising one's rights to live one's own private life should be free from evil and infamous societal intervention and sanction? I object in the strongest possible terms.
The term "pardon" should stick in everyone's craw. The term belongs to another age, when royalty dare not admit that wrongs were committed. Did Alan Turing ever commit any act for which he should have said "I beg your pardon" to society? I think not. I know that pardons are granted for wrongful convictions as well as when the recipient is considered to have fulfilled their debt to society. I also know that in the UK a pardon implies moral innocence. Maybe it's silly of me to be hung up on the word itself, but I am. There ought to be a better term for nullification of convictions arising from laws which have been found to be unjust, immoral and evil, and the title of the nullification ought to make it clear that it isn't forgiveness, because the victim in these cases has done nothing which needs to be forgiven.
Think about it. Escaped slaves who were caught in the past: do we now really want to retrospectively say in magnanimity that we forgive them for escaping? If I were so descended, I would symbolically spit in the face of one so declaring in those terms.
The question is not whether the app store is compatible with GPL software. The question is whether a copyright holder asks Apple to remove the software. It's a DMCA notice, and when Apple gets a DMCA notice, they take it down.
Dear god, how did the world survive before DMCA? Oh wait, copyrights were enforced via due process rather than draconian excess. How will the world survive after DMCA is blown away and sent back to hell where it came from? I'm confident the answer is "very nicely; a lot better than now in fact". The DMCA is a red herring to this situation. A copyright holder can defend against violation of the terms of the license he has chosen without the DMCA.
The strange thing is that on Slashdot a DMCA takedown notice is considered a dick move - unless it is about GPL licensed software taken down from the app store.
I don't think there is a single voice here, except that the DMCA is the wrong way to enforce copyrights, prosecutes violations the wrong way (criminally), prescribes the wrong penalties, and glosses over due process. Some of us don't think there is such a thing as intellectual property; others think that copyright is proper but that software patents are bad policy; others that all patents are bad policy. Some of us (to grossly oversimplify) prefer GPL; others prefer BSD or something else; others think there is a benefit to mixing licenses for different components.
One of the developers acted like a dick, and declared "zomg, that benefits a large corporation therefore it's evil, you're in violation of my copyright, take it all down".
Don't be a clown, you anonymous shill, and especially don't be an ignorant blowhard. The terms of the App Store were in violation of the program's license, not the copyright, except insofar as the copyright is what puts the teeth in enforcing the license terms. It had nothing to do with benefiting a large company. On the contrary, many large corporations benefit from the GPL. Why should you publish license terms (GPL) if you do not intend to have them honored?
Basically if I wrote a silly.dll or header file that is only 1k in length that you include for your 100 meg program I in essence take ownership of the rest of it as the GPL forbids linking it unless the master program is also under GPL.
Incorrect. You don't "take ownership" of somebody else's work by default. Copyright rules, legally. Each party owns his own work by copyright. What you have, IF the other guy's work is not GPL, is a case for that guy violating the GPL.
You are looking at it ass-backwards. Find an honest man with core principles who recognizes the NSA should be abolished, and is otherwise well qualified to be President, and help see him through to nomination and election. If you need a third party, add that to the list of things to do.
Funny, I could see right through him from the word go, as soon as his name came up for nomination. Once he and the dope on the R ticket were nominated it was all over.
Like the others say, I don't think that's the way to handle it, especially since the supreme court is in the bag for this activity. Everyone involved in this activity is ALREADY in violation of their pledge to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, which is written in plain language, specifically the 4th amendment. Their uppermost solemn duty is to decline to carry this out. In an unsubverted US they would all be facing severe penalties.
A President set up the NSA unilaterally. I'm pretty sure a President could disband it just as easily.
And WE don't need a warrant to vote for the first presidential candidate who promises to rock your world and make sure your out of control ass gets curbed, and to prosecute everyone who failed to honor their pledge to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. In fact maybe the NSA doesn't even need to exist. We won WW2 without you.
Sincerely, voting citizens who have a clue and a care
Piracy is an Illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends (illicit profit) by the crew of a private ship against another ship on the high seas. It has been expanded logically to air piracy. Period. Any appropriation to utterly unrelated acts is illiteracy committed by stupid people with an axe to grind.
Get the fuck over it. You got a problem with copyright circumvention, start by calling it what it is. Don't demonize it. 99% of what is called piracy in this context involves no personal gain by anybody.
Or you can give up being an offended prima donna and be glad there *IS* a linux kernel to work on; its existence is due to one man.
I used to have a boss who would say "shut up" and "you're fired" in meetings and in regular work. I understood him. He was a great guy actually. Brilliant and not mean.
No it didn't. Windows 386 added 32 bit. For user mode. The DOS "kernel" was still straight 16 bit all the way in both, though there were some 32 bit drivers that superseded the DOS drivers that were still there, for some IO.
As well as leaving 2000 out of that list for no reason whatsoever, you also left out 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 98SE, NT 3.1, NT 3.51, and NT 4.0. I used every single one on that list except for the completely useless garbage 95, 98, 98SE, Me, and 8. Yeah, I even used Vista. It deadlocked trying to update to SP1, so I was stuck on GA til the day I dropped it, but other than that it wasn't THAT bad.
I installed NT 3.1 the day it became available and give it a lot of credit for what in reality was a 1.0 version. It did have some crashes and bugs, every one of which was fixed in 3.51, which was rock solid, another install I did on day one. As well as 4.0, the last version that was not dumbed down a single iota to cater to dumbells.
The most reliable of the bunch? NT 3.51 without any question whatsoever. The best all-around? NT 4.0, 2000 in a perfect tie. XP was only very slightly behind and also gets a lot of points for simple longevity.
Sorry, there's nothing irrational about it. Pounding the back of a guy's head against concrete is pretty much guaranteed to kill him if you are really serious, dead drunk, or seriously enraged. Most people have a strong inhibition they are not really conscious of against splitting a guy's head open like a melon, but in the heat of combat it's all too easy to find yourself staring at a spreading pool of blood on the sidewalk, wondering when you are going to wake up from what you just did in a bad dream. One that never ends.
There isn't anything "surprisingly resilient" about someone's head.
I hear you brother. I had the nice jewel-like HP 2133 with the keyboard to die for and 1280x768 on an 8.9" display, but I got to where I would have to bend over it about 6" away to see anything at all. My Thinkpad X301 13" 1440x900 was a thing of beauty but also got too hard to see. I'm afraid the future is realistically just one with no notebook.
I did find out that with GNOME 2, and after finding out the secret with stupid Firefox and Thunderbird which do things their own way, I could get everything to scale satisfactorily to just about 1.5 size (148 so called dpi). I now actually use that setting on my 24" monitor and I usually hold my face within 12" of it; many times 6"!
Full HD in a laptop should be ideal. It would be a gimme to add a mode to the display driver that just doubles all dots horizontally and vertically, giving 960x540 with perfect scaling.
I'm not suggesting a 6.1" screen - I think it's too big to hold
The diagonal size of the screen is completely irrelevant to whether you can hold it conveniently. The width of the larger of the two phones is 88mm (3.46"). If that's too wide to hold, you must have the hands of the Gerber baby-food baby.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, but every time I see the term "gay rights", I roll my eyes. There are no "gay rights". At least those involved in integration (who mattered) didn't call it "black rights" or even "racial rights", but "civil rights". I'm pretty sure civil rights, properly interpreted, covers everything.
Everyone is due the right to conduct their personal affairs, which are absolutely no business of society, free from authorities spying, interfering, and punishing, whether those authorities are the government, the workplace, an organized religion, or anyone else.
There is an issue of public health, and it is a very messy and tendentious one, but this should never target by group identification. It's too easy to end up with laws just as stupid and evil as those against "impaired driving". The wrongdoing isn't impaired driving, it's incompetent driving, incompetent for WHATEVER REASON, but even then only as a condition in an event which involves injury to other people and destruction of their property. Otherwise no wrong has been done to anyone.
Exactly. Well, actually the Poles did a bit more than just what you give them credit for. They created their own reverse-engineered enigma machines (or "doubles", or "bombes"; it is not entirely clear to me which term is the most accurate) and eventually furnished them to the British.
Also, I have a reservation about the usage "cracked" or "broke" such-and-such cipher. Terms like these imply that you do the work once, and then the ciphertext is effortlessly deciphered from then on. In actuality, it is not nearly that straightforward. The British (with American help) had to "crack" enigma messages every day of the war in a vast continuing effort. Tools and techniques were developed that remained instrumental, but everything was back on the table constantly. To me the continuing success of that operation was the true miracle of ultra. The whole thing just made the Germans look like babes in the wood. The operation involving Turing, a number of other geniuses who are never properly recognized, and a host of incredibly dedicated and wonderfully clever lower level workers ceaselessly toiling on the most exhausting work, was transcendently brilliant.
Really? "The public good" is your (only) measure of whether exercising one's rights to live one's own private life should be free from evil and infamous societal intervention and sanction? I object in the strongest possible terms.
There was a petition to HM Government for that very thing. It was rejected on absurd grounds.
The term "pardon" should stick in everyone's craw. The term belongs to another age, when royalty dare not admit that wrongs were committed. Did Alan Turing ever commit any act for which he should have said "I beg your pardon" to society? I think not. I know that pardons are granted for wrongful convictions as well as when the recipient is considered to have fulfilled their debt to society. I also know that in the UK a pardon implies moral innocence. Maybe it's silly of me to be hung up on the word itself, but I am. There ought to be a better term for nullification of convictions arising from laws which have been found to be unjust, immoral and evil, and the title of the nullification ought to make it clear that it isn't forgiveness, because the victim in these cases has done nothing which needs to be forgiven.
Think about it. Escaped slaves who were caught in the past: do we now really want to retrospectively say in magnanimity that we forgive them for escaping? If I were so descended, I would symbolically spit in the face of one so declaring in those terms.
Dear god, how did the world survive before DMCA? Oh wait, copyrights were enforced via due process rather than draconian excess. How will the world survive after DMCA is blown away and sent back to hell where it came from? I'm confident the answer is "very nicely; a lot better than now in fact". The DMCA is a red herring to this situation. A copyright holder can defend against violation of the terms of the license he has chosen without the DMCA.
I don't think there is a single voice here, except that the DMCA is the wrong way to enforce copyrights, prosecutes violations the wrong way (criminally), prescribes the wrong penalties, and glosses over due process. Some of us don't think there is such a thing as intellectual property; others think that copyright is proper but that software patents are bad policy; others that all patents are bad policy. Some of us (to grossly oversimplify) prefer GPL; others prefer BSD or something else; others think there is a benefit to mixing licenses for different components.
Don't be a clown, you anonymous shill, and especially don't be an ignorant blowhard. The terms of the App Store were in violation of the program's license, not the copyright, except insofar as the copyright is what puts the teeth in enforcing the license terms. It had nothing to do with benefiting a large company. On the contrary, many large corporations benefit from the GPL. Why should you publish license terms (GPL) if you do not intend to have them honored?
Incorrect. You don't "take ownership" of somebody else's work by default. Copyright rules, legally. Each party owns his own work by copyright. What you have, IF the other guy's work is not GPL, is a case for that guy violating the GPL.
"There is no gene for the human spirit", but there sure are genes that give the human spirit a bad time.
You are looking at it ass-backwards. Find an honest man with core principles who recognizes the NSA should be abolished, and is otherwise well qualified to be President, and help see him through to nomination and election. If you need a third party, add that to the list of things to do.
Nothing worth doing is easy.
Yeah, so let's not even try? Tyranny couldn't exist without attitudes like that, backed up by resignation.
Funny, I could see right through him from the word go, as soon as his name came up for nomination. Once he and the dope on the R ticket were nominated it was all over.
"I find your rationale disturbing."
-- Darth Vader's good twin
Wrong. A President instituted the NSA on his own. A President could abolish the NSA on his own.
Like the others say, I don't think that's the way to handle it, especially since the supreme court is in the bag for this activity. Everyone involved in this activity is ALREADY in violation of their pledge to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, which is written in plain language, specifically the 4th amendment. Their uppermost solemn duty is to decline to carry this out. In an unsubverted US they would all be facing severe penalties.
A President set up the NSA unilaterally. I'm pretty sure a President could disband it just as easily.
Dear DOJ:
And WE don't need a warrant to vote for the first presidential candidate who promises to rock your world and make sure your out of control ass gets curbed, and to prosecute everyone who failed to honor their pledge to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. In fact maybe the NSA doesn't even need to exist. We won WW2 without you.
Sincerely,
voting citizens who have a clue and a care
Piracy is an Illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends (illicit profit) by the crew of a private ship against another ship on the high seas. It has been expanded logically to air piracy. Period. Any appropriation to utterly unrelated acts is illiteracy committed by stupid people with an axe to grind.
Get the fuck over it. You got a problem with copyright circumvention, start by calling it what it is. Don't demonize it. 99% of what is called piracy in this context involves no personal gain by anybody.
Or you can give up being an offended prima donna and be glad there *IS* a linux kernel to work on; its existence is due to one man.
I used to have a boss who would say "shut up" and "you're fired" in meetings and in regular work. I understood him. He was a great guy actually. Brilliant and not mean.
No it didn't. Windows 386 added 32 bit. For user mode. The DOS "kernel" was still straight 16 bit all the way in both, though there were some 32 bit drivers that superseded the DOS drivers that were still there, for some IO.
As well as leaving 2000 out of that list for no reason whatsoever, you also left out 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 98SE, NT 3.1, NT 3.51, and NT 4.0. I used every single one on that list except for the completely useless garbage 95, 98, 98SE, Me, and 8. Yeah, I even used Vista. It deadlocked trying to update to SP1, so I was stuck on GA til the day I dropped it, but other than that it wasn't THAT bad.
I installed NT 3.1 the day it became available and give it a lot of credit for what in reality was a 1.0 version. It did have some crashes and bugs, every one of which was fixed in 3.51, which was rock solid, another install I did on day one. As well as 4.0, the last version that was not dumbed down a single iota to cater to dumbells.
The most reliable of the bunch? NT 3.51 without any question whatsoever. The best all-around? NT 4.0, 2000 in a perfect tie. XP was only very slightly behind and also gets a lot of points for simple longevity.
Sorry, there's nothing irrational about it. Pounding the back of a guy's head against concrete is pretty much guaranteed to kill him if you are really serious, dead drunk, or seriously enraged. Most people have a strong inhibition they are not really conscious of against splitting a guy's head open like a melon, but in the heat of combat it's all too easy to find yourself staring at a spreading pool of blood on the sidewalk, wondering when you are going to wake up from what you just did in a bad dream. One that never ends.
There isn't anything "surprisingly resilient" about someone's head.
I hear you brother. I had the nice jewel-like HP 2133 with the keyboard to die for and 1280x768 on an 8.9" display, but I got to where I would have to bend over it about 6" away to see anything at all. My Thinkpad X301 13" 1440x900 was a thing of beauty but also got too hard to see. I'm afraid the future is realistically just one with no notebook.
I did find out that with GNOME 2, and after finding out the secret with stupid Firefox and Thunderbird which do things their own way, I could get everything to scale satisfactorily to just about 1.5 size (148 so called dpi). I now actually use that setting on my 24" monitor and I usually hold my face within 12" of it; many times 6"!
Full HD in a laptop should be ideal. It would be a gimme to add a mode to the display driver that just doubles all dots horizontally and vertically, giving 960x540 with perfect scaling.
o-gauge trains were much more fun to play with than n-gauge.
The diagonal size of the screen is completely irrelevant to whether you can hold it conveniently. The width of the larger of the two phones is 88mm (3.46"). If that's too wide to hold, you must have the hands of the Gerber baby-food baby.
Pssst. 15" is too big to lug around too. 13" is the appropriate size.