Having comfortable living conditions does not pre-empt having opinions about the state of society and trying to act on them. An affluent programmer who sees RIAA tactics as diminishing his/her creative freedoms could argue that anyone (affluent or not) paying for music is subsidizing the orthodoxy that restricts creativity. Everyone who buys into that programmer's argument would have to either stop participating in culture-at-large or practice civil disobedience by downloading rather buying music. Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" argued against paying taxes as a way to protest establishment that supported slavery. I am sure his critics called him greedy as well.
Civil disobedience does not have to be about demonstrating something. It can be simply a way to oppose the establishment in a non-violent way. Doing anonymously allows one to continue doing it.
I was thinking more of civil disobedience as preached by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience". It is not necessary to practice civil disobedience as a statement. It can be practiced for the sole purpose of non-violently opposing the corrupt regime. To quote the Wikipedia entry, "Voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support." As such, practicing civil disobedience anonymously is actually more effective because after not getting caught you get to practice it again.
Umm, a "copyright infringer" might argue that our copyright laws have been hijacked by private interests and are no longer serving the public good (as the Constitution mandates). Thus he might argue that an anonymous copyright infringement might be an act of civil disobedience. So he would view the ability to do it anonymously precisely as an act of opposing an oppressive government.
Umm, what the?.. My post was pointing out the obvious xenophobia. What does that have to do with the economics of spamming? A true libertarian would have to think pretty hard about where the spam line drawn because he would have to remember that everyone has (or should have) the right to enjoy one's property. But why derail my comment in this direction?
There is a good line in Dune -- "You control a mentat by controlling his information." The religious crowd is easily aroused by "think of the children." Apparently, the slashdot crowd needs to hear "think of the spam." This is how the world network for all-to-free an exchange of information will be fractured. You just need to find a hot-button issue for every crowd and they'll scream for the separation along national borders on their own (thinking it's their own idea).
A good number of the posts so far propose blocking Russia altogether. Because there is no "business" done with Russia. Aha. But that means no Russian news. No access to chats with Americans for Russians. Hell, the new Russian order couldn't dream of a better situation. Not only do they get not to have their citizens interact with Americans freely, but they also don't have to be the bad guys in it. The Jefferson quote states that giving up freedom for a little bit of security will cause one to lose both. But why go that far? "little bit of security" is not even necessary as the price. Apparently a little bit of expediency is enough.
It's censorship and xenophobia even if you can make a Yakov Smirnoff joke of it. Sorry, but this time, the boogie man is you!
One provides more detail and back story including a look at one ISP's security admin who decided last summer to ban all RBN traffic from his network, with outstanding results.
If this was not a network in Russia, but oh, say AOL, the fact that lots of its hosts were bots for the bad guys would not change the fact that banning the whole network is censorship. But, of course, all Russian businessmen are mobsters, right? So it's Ok to do this to a network in Russia. Right! How is this article missing a censorship tag?
Yeah, yeah, let's get funny with all the "in soviet blah, blah, blah." If you don't think you are being suckered into the new xenophobia based on old world paradigms, you are being suckered good. Blocking a Russian network because some of its hosts are used by the mob is like boycotting every Italian restaurant because some of them are used to launder money by the mob.
umm... when I asked "how", I didn't mean through what procedural process... I meant how they plan to (through whatever proper procedure) accomplish that which cannot exist.
they plan to tax voip when you can implement it with open source solutions. no, my mom doesn't know how to do it. but taxes piss people off just enough that the chances of a nicely packaged solution appearing pretty soon are pretty high. get ready for becoming a criminal because you own a compiler.
Ie, the "voice of the people" (that the grandparent mentions) is expressed with their wallets?.. As long as they are free to express it in such a way? And any regulatory (government) or central power (monopoly/oligopoly/local mobster) interference takes away that freedom -- the freedom to express one's voice through one's wallet?
Yes, I am aware that in the most technical (proper economic theory) use of the word, monopoly means rule of one. But sometimes it is better to be imprecise in your use of terminology to make your point... rather than an oxymoron, I'd say that this is "abuse of notation."
Umm. No! This is precisely what happens when there is no capitalism. Capitalism is based on competition. Monopolies remove competition and make the decision-making process based on comities. It is because music industry is controlled by a few monopolies that they feel they need to control their clients rather than satisfy them. So fuck socialism in the from of monopolies and viva capitalism in the form of free choices!
Well, the theory on "Democracy" is that there is a better way. If you are willing to throw the protection of civilized society away over this (by choosing a life of crime), surely you would be willing to take a smaller step and vote for a candidate in the next congressional/presidential race based solely on this position.
If the speech is defamatory, the hospital's concerns can be addressed by digging deeper. But at this point we have only the hospital's assertion that the speech is defamatory. So. The speech is public. The words are right there. Let the hospital address that first. Let them show in court that the blogger did in fact defame them. If they can show that, then let them find out who defamed them so they can collect damages. And if they can't, if the blog posts aren't in fact defamatory, then they have no need to know who made them in the first place. Interesting theory, except that they can't show in court that the speech is defamatory if there is no one on the other side defending their right to this speech because it's not defamatory. Court, as such, is a forum for debate. You can't have a debate without the other side present.
As far as not being afraid of not being anonymous, how about that comment you made to your wife/girlfriend about how stupid your boss is? You've a right to free speech, you were completely honest in it, do you really want your boss knowing it was you made that statement? After all, you shouldn't be afraid of being anonymous to him, should you? This analogy falls apart because the comment you made to your wife/girlfriend was made in private. The comment made was a blog is made available to the public at large.
What is the cost of discovery? What was the profit from Columbus' voyage? From Pythagorean Theorem? And since we are talking about GRADUATE school in sciences, it's purpose is to train people for research. Ie, the life of discovery. All wealthy nations fund it. Not funding it stops the civilization. You might not like it because you think that your immediate problems deserve more immediate attention, but not investing in the future guarantees not having one.
Because engineering speaks the universal language - Mathematics. This gave me a good laugh. There is nothing universal about math. Only the math that is well understood by now. And the only reason it's "universal" is because of historical accident of having been discovered by few people who got to name the concepts they discovered.... more like invent shortcut notation rather than "name" actually. Anyway, just about any math that came about in the 20th century (and yes, it is already trickling its way into physics, so it's not just an intellectual exercise) reads like an essay and doesn't look like "math" at all to laymen. To add to all that fun stuff, to read and understand the latest developments in math, be prepared to learn French (and if you are ambitious, German and Russian... but French is almost required at this point).
The problem was that I had to point it to a repository on the Internet. So everytime I tried to change packages it would go through parsing of something it pulled off the net. Previous (9.x) versions could be pointed to the local repository, so changing of packages was nearly instant. After a while I completely gave up on using their tool and just started updating rpm's by hand.
Did SuSE fix installation, yet? The last time I tried it (10.0,10.2) it was still a pain in the neck. It was querrying the comapany server everytime I tried to change packages.
He did, in fact, claim that SCO's downfall was due to the natural market forces and the company's inability to compete with other Unix vendors. His claim, actually, doesn't seem to make too much of a boogy man of the competition... he didn't say they sold child porn... he just said they were provding alternative which the market place prefered.
The reason he is being this (almost) honest is that he now needs to downplay the fact that SCO completely lost their ability to gain new business because of the lawsuits. Without even mentioning whether the lawsuit has merit, the rule of the market place is if you can compete you compete, if you can't compete you go away or sue (see Sun Tzu's "...if the enemy is weaker than you fight him; if he is equally matched, irritate him; if he is stronger evade him..."). Suing, of course, is meant to be the irritating distraction.
So the market place came to see the company as admitting defeat because of the lawsuits. This is what he trying to divert attention from. And everyone here seems to be playing his hand.
What did you give to Microsoft to use Windows Live?
Well, since Microsoft agrees to perform something of value (provide a service) and it is not a non-profit organization, it must be assumed that (because of their stated intent in the incorporation charter) whatever it is getting in exchange is something that it deems to be of value. It could be something as trivial as an opportunity to display their ads.
They have patented an unethical behaviour. Does that mean it will be harder for other people to do what the patent describes? Please?
Well, it could mean one of two things. Either they don't want anyone else doing this (as someone pointed out above), or they want to insist on the status of not being just evil, but rather being the masters of all evil (so they want to be paid by anyone else who decides to be evil).
Nobody objects to "informed consent" here. What people don't like is having the contract changed while it is being exercised. They are not talking about just a website. They are talking about a service which is used after agreeing to a certain contract. This practice is at the very least deceptive since a contract is a promise of a future performance. If the contract is changed while it is being exercised, the other party could suffer. You can change services, yes. But using a certain service may require commitment of resources. Changing the service would mean losing those committed resources.
Slashdot Mirror
So you'd rather Putin consolidated some power than you got some spam? Check your priorities.
Having comfortable living conditions does not pre-empt having opinions about the state of society and trying to act on them. An affluent programmer who sees RIAA tactics as diminishing his/her creative freedoms could argue that anyone (affluent or not) paying for music is subsidizing the orthodoxy that restricts creativity. Everyone who buys into that programmer's argument would have to either stop participating in culture-at-large or practice civil disobedience by downloading rather buying music. Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" argued against paying taxes as a way to protest establishment that supported slavery. I am sure his critics called him greedy as well.
Civil disobedience does not have to be about demonstrating something. It can be simply a way to oppose the establishment in a non-violent way. Doing anonymously allows one to continue doing it.
I was thinking more of civil disobedience as preached by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience". It is not necessary to practice civil disobedience as a statement. It can be practiced for the sole purpose of non-violently opposing the corrupt regime. To quote the Wikipedia entry, "Voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support." As such, practicing civil disobedience anonymously is actually more effective because after not getting caught you get to practice it again.
Umm, a "copyright infringer" might argue that our copyright laws have been hijacked by private interests and are no longer serving the public good (as the Constitution mandates). Thus he might argue that an anonymous copyright infringement might be an act of civil disobedience. So he would view the ability to do it anonymously precisely as an act of opposing an oppressive government.
Umm, what the?.. My post was pointing out the obvious xenophobia. What does that have to do with the economics of spamming? A true libertarian would have to think pretty hard about where the spam line drawn because he would have to remember that everyone has (or should have) the right to enjoy one's property. But why derail my comment in this direction?
There is a good line in Dune -- "You control a mentat by controlling his information." The religious crowd is easily aroused by "think of the children." Apparently, the slashdot crowd needs to hear "think of the spam." This is how the world network for all-to-free an exchange of information will be fractured. You just need to find a hot-button issue for every crowd and they'll scream for the separation along national borders on their own (thinking it's their own idea).
A good number of the posts so far propose blocking Russia altogether. Because there is no "business" done with Russia. Aha. But that means no Russian news. No access to chats with Americans for Russians. Hell, the new Russian order couldn't dream of a better situation. Not only do they get not to have their citizens interact with Americans freely, but they also don't have to be the bad guys in it. The Jefferson quote states that giving up freedom for a little bit of security will cause one to lose both. But why go that far? "little bit of security" is not even necessary as the price. Apparently a little bit of expediency is enough.
It's censorship and xenophobia even if you can make a Yakov Smirnoff joke of it. Sorry, but this time, the boogie man is you!
Sure, sure. Just take your enlightened views to the more appropriate forum... perhaps your local KKK meeting?
If this was not a network in Russia, but oh, say AOL, the fact that lots of its hosts were bots for the bad guys would not change the fact that banning the whole network is censorship. But, of course, all Russian businessmen are mobsters, right? So it's Ok to do this to a network in Russia. Right! How is this article missing a censorship tag?
Yeah, yeah, let's get funny with all the "in soviet blah, blah, blah." If you don't think you are being suckered into the new xenophobia based on old world paradigms, you are being suckered good. Blocking a Russian network because some of its hosts are used by the mob is like boycotting every Italian restaurant because some of them are used to launder money by the mob.
umm... when I asked "how", I didn't mean through what procedural process... I meant how they plan to (through whatever proper procedure) accomplish that which cannot exist.
they plan to tax voip when you can implement it with open source solutions. no, my mom doesn't know how to do it. but taxes piss people off just enough that the chances of a nicely packaged solution appearing pretty soon are pretty high. get ready for becoming a criminal because you own a compiler.
Ie, the "voice of the people" (that the grandparent mentions) is expressed with their wallets?.. As long as they are free to express it in such a way? And any regulatory (government) or central power (monopoly/oligopoly/local mobster) interference takes away that freedom -- the freedom to express one's voice through one's wallet?
Yes, I am aware that in the most technical (proper economic theory) use of the word, monopoly means rule of one. But sometimes it is better to be imprecise in your use of terminology to make your point... rather than an oxymoron, I'd say that this is "abuse of notation."
Umm. No! This is precisely what happens when there is no capitalism. Capitalism is based on competition. Monopolies remove competition and make the decision-making process based on comities. It is because music industry is controlled by a few monopolies that they feel they need to control their clients rather than satisfy them. So fuck socialism in the from of monopolies and viva capitalism in the form of free choices!
Well, the theory on "Democracy" is that there is a better way. If you are willing to throw the protection of civilized society away over this (by choosing a life of crime), surely you would be willing to take a smaller step and vote for a candidate in the next congressional/presidential race based solely on this position.
What is the cost of discovery? What was the profit from Columbus' voyage? From Pythagorean Theorem? And since we are talking about GRADUATE school in sciences, it's purpose is to train people for research. Ie, the life of discovery. All wealthy nations fund it. Not funding it stops the civilization. You might not like it because you think that your immediate problems deserve more immediate attention, but not investing in the future guarantees not having one.
The problem was that I had to point it to a repository on the Internet. So everytime I tried to change packages it would go through parsing of something it pulled off the net. Previous (9.x) versions could be pointed to the local repository, so changing of packages was nearly instant. After a while I completely gave up on using their tool and just started updating rpm's by hand.
Did SuSE fix installation, yet? The last time I tried it (10.0,10.2) it was still a pain in the neck. It was querrying the comapany server everytime I tried to change packages.
He did, in fact, claim that SCO's downfall was due to the natural market forces and the company's inability to compete with other Unix vendors. His claim, actually, doesn't seem to make too much of a boogy man of the competition... he didn't say they sold child porn... he just said they were provding alternative which the market place prefered.
The reason he is being this (almost) honest is that he now needs to downplay the fact that SCO completely lost their ability to gain new business because of the lawsuits. Without even mentioning whether the lawsuit has merit, the rule of the market place is if you can compete you compete, if you can't compete you go away or sue (see Sun Tzu's "...if the enemy is weaker than you fight him; if he is equally matched, irritate him; if he is stronger evade him..."). Suing, of course, is meant to be the irritating distraction.
So the market place came to see the company as admitting defeat because of the lawsuits. This is what he trying to divert attention from. And everyone here seems to be playing his hand.
Is that this blabber of legalese is now legitimate tech news.
Well, since Microsoft agrees to perform something of value (provide a service) and it is not a non-profit organization, it must be assumed that (because of their stated intent in the incorporation charter) whatever it is getting in exchange is something that it deems to be of value. It could be something as trivial as an opportunity to display their ads.
Well, it could mean one of two things. Either they don't want anyone else doing this (as someone pointed out above), or they want to insist on the status of not being just evil, but rather being the masters of all evil (so they want to be paid by anyone else who decides to be evil).
Nobody objects to "informed consent" here. What people don't like is having the contract changed while it is being exercised. They are not talking about just a website. They are talking about a service which is used after agreeing to a certain contract. This practice is at the very least deceptive since a contract is a promise of a future performance. If the contract is changed while it is being exercised, the other party could suffer. You can change services, yes. But using a certain service may require commitment of resources. Changing the service would mean losing those committed resources.