to date, i don't think they've violated nmap's copyright. now, however, NMap's authors have revoked SCO's license to redistribute NMap. if SCO redistributes NMap from this point on, they will be violating NMap's copyright. <obligatory sarcasm> but since the GPL really does violate the US Constitution, GPL = public domain </obligatory sarcasm>
submit a patch or shut up. Identifying a problem we all know exists isn't that amazing.
on the other hand, the "squeaky wheel gets the grease"
i think the more noise everybody makes about a particular shortcoming, the more the entire community will pay attention to that particular shortcoming. yeah, it might be annoying that people keep harping on this, but in it's own way, it will help get things done
Maybe they're talking about military tactics or something when they say "human interaction,"
they're probably trying to figure out how political, economic and natural geographies influence populations' loyalties and interests. previously, the battle for "hearts and minds" relied on underground newspapers, broadcasts and leaflets, and were targeted according to personal judgements. here, propaganda warfare meets the information age.
so, really, it is a study in human interaction...with a military orientation, of course. a very smart move.
feel so strongly about enabling criminally free speech (kiddie porn, etc.), then they should feel strongly enough about it to be able to do so without my money or anybody else's
what i would really like to know, do they feel so strongly about free speech that they would be willing to take responsibilty for what's said. someone correct me if i'm wrong, but all other civil rights movements seem to have involved people with conviction (openly) defying unjust laws/etc and being willing to take responsibilty for their actions. freenet seems like it is (or is becoming) all about shirking responsibility or shifting it off onto someone else.
having said that, i think freenet is a fascinating project. but until i can control what i'm hosting, i think it's unacceptably flawed.
someone mentioned in a different thread the MUTE project, which i find more acceptable because i have direct control over what i share
mods: this is not a troll, just my take on the subject
i wish they would still distribute it as a zip file. with the installer, i can't take it around on a pen drive and install on the computer labs at school.
pop up ads are nothing. i haven't had to deal with pop ups on my own computer for years. the real trick is to get a really good multi ad blocker. (damn that flickering serverbeach ad at the top of this page!)
"No, they [rights] belong to state and local governments. That collectivist bullshit.'"
according to the Constitution and our Founders' way of thinking, governments don't have rights, only powers/authority. which is why i call it "collectivist" bullshit.
the Constitution is fairly clear when read consistently. the problem is not with the text. and yes, we'll probably be arguing this issue for ages:) peace.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one"
you didn't need to quote that at me, becuase i RTFL. the Supreme Court, despite the aclu's claims, has never indicated that the right to bear arms is "primarily a collective one." (i suggest you actually read Miller before you throw that at me.)
according to the "collective right" nonsense espoused by the 9th Circuit (and the aclu), the individual has no right to keep and bear arms. if you take the trouble to google for and read the 9th's decision and dissents in Silveira v Lockyer, you'll find that the "collective right" theory says nobody has standing to challenge any infringements upon the second amendment. unless, of course, you think it makes sense for the state to sue itself.
the "People," as properly interpreted throughout the Constitution, refers to individuals that have rights (free speech, trial by jury, security of person and property, etc). if these rights do not belong to individuals (not this "collectivist" bullshit), then they can not be rights. etc, etc, therefore, the second amendment is meaningless to the aclu.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is more hostile to your precious guns than the ACLU ever was.
that may be. doesn't change the fact that the aclu doesn't care.
The constitution gives the individual states the right to form armed militias, not the public the right to bare arms
i couldv'e sworn the second amendment says something about "the right of the people" regarding the "keep[ing] and bear[ing of] arms."
about the in depth analysis of the second amendment, peruse the rest of the comments.
and why is it that the moderatoes insist upon modding anti-gun comments "Informative" (especially when they're demonstrably false, as the parent is) and pro-rights comments as merely "Interesting."
/me dons my tin foil hat and senses that the moderators want to change reality by calling falsehoods "Informative."
After Columbine, they organized a rally in Denver.
wrong. that "rally" was a legally required members' conference that had been on the calendar for months before the Columbine murders. and mindful of the recent (10 days earlier) tragedy, the NRA cancelled the usual "festivities" that accompany their annual meeting.
After the shooting in Flint, Michigan, they organized a rally in Flint.
the political rally to support W didn't have anything to do with the mom that regularly left her kid alone in a crack house. and that, as moore says, "the [Flint] community had just gone through this," is an outright lie. the political rally in question took place 8 (eight) months after the incident.
It was founded the SAME YEAR that the Ku Klux Klan became an official terrorist organization.
so? the NRA was founded by Union generals (you know, the ones that fought to free the slaves) to encourage firearms skills. freed slaves even started NRA chapters so they could get free guns to protect themselves from klan riders.
btw, all forms of early gun control were explicitly or implicitly racist in nature (Jim Crow laws).
the morals of this story? michael moore is a big fat liar, gun control is a racist policy, and guns save lives.
This isn't a gun safety organization. These are people who want to kill.
For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens...it [the Constitution] would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." [emphasis added]
And incidentally, the ACLU does fight for the rights of all Americans.
the aclu says the People don't have the right to own firearms, so they don't defend gun-owning citizens. by your logic, the aclu would still be "fight[ing] for the rights of all Americans" if the aclu were to say, "blacks don't have a right to liberty," and then sit idly by while slavery is reinstituted.
For instance if your tires were spinning, it could record you going a lot faster than you actually were, but the blackbox has no way of telling that, it will just simply record the speed your tires were spinning at...regardless of how fast you were going...
an accelerometer could solve that problem, though it's probably overkill. probably way too expensive, too.
cost analysis isn't the only issue. the MA reasoning may be that they want OSS for the freedom of information quality. think about it, if the gov't is using closed source software, for instance, to tally votes, and someone files a FOIA request, they can't exactly get the propriety information (ie, source code).
it almost seems that OSS is absolutely necessary in order for a gov't to be able to comply with the FOIA.
well, i think MACs are compatible, but other than that, yes...
"The PC, software players, and portable devices must be compliant with current security standards and compatible with the technology that is used to access, deliver, and secure the content."
the PGP "web of trust" scheme might work: everybody signs all the keys of people they know to be human (not spammers), and you select whose signatures you trust, and how many degrees of separation you will trust (this isn't part of the PGP implementation, i don't think, but it's an idea)
Slashdot Mirror
to date, i don't think they've violated nmap's copyright. now, however, NMap's authors have revoked SCO's license to redistribute NMap. if SCO redistributes NMap from this point on, they will be violating NMap's copyright. <obligatory sarcasm> but since the GPL really does violate the US Constitution, GPL = public domain </obligatory sarcasm>
on the other hand, the "squeaky wheel gets the grease"
i think the more noise everybody makes about a particular shortcoming, the more the entire community will pay attention to that particular shortcoming. yeah, it might be annoying that people keep harping on this, but in it's own way, it will help get things done
just a thoughthas anyone made windows binaries of CRM114?
they're probably trying to figure out how political, economic and natural geographies influence populations' loyalties and interests. previously, the battle for "hearts and minds" relied on underground newspapers, broadcasts and leaflets, and were targeted according to personal judgements. here, propaganda warfare meets the information age.
so, really, it is a study in human interaction...with a military orientation, of course. a very smart move.but i do recognize the importance of anonymity, which is why i mention the MUTE project
it seems to provide anonymity, while at the same time allowing each node to control what it hostsfeel so strongly about enabling criminally free speech (kiddie porn, etc.), then they should feel strongly enough about it to be able to do so without my money or anybody else's
what i would really like to know, do they feel so strongly about free speech that they would be willing to take responsibilty for what's said. someone correct me if i'm wrong, but all other civil rights movements seem to have involved people with conviction (openly) defying unjust laws/etc and being willing to take responsibilty for their actions. freenet seems like it is (or is becoming) all about shirking responsibility or shifting it off onto someone else.
having said that, i think freenet is a fascinating project. but until i can control what i'm hosting, i think it's unacceptably flawed.
someone mentioned in a different thread the MUTE project, which i find more acceptable because i have direct control over what i share
mods: this is not a troll, just my take on the subjecti wish they would still distribute it as a zip file. with the installer, i can't take it around on a pen drive and install on the computer labs at school.
pop up ads are nothing. i haven't had to deal with pop ups on my own computer for years. the real trick is to get a really good multi ad blocker. (damn that flickering serverbeach ad at the top of this page!)
I wonder if they'll support 2k Professional/Advanced Server however in this endeavour.
probably not...remember, M$ wants people to "upgrade" to xp
"No, they [rights] belong to state and local governments. That collectivist bullshit.'"
according to the Constitution and our Founders' way of thinking, governments don't have rights, only powers/authority. which is why i call it "collectivist" bullshit.
the Constitution is fairly clear when read consistently. the problem is not with the text. and yes, we'll probably be arguing this issue for ages :) peace.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one"
you didn't need to quote that at me, becuase i RTFL. the Supreme Court, despite the aclu's claims, has never indicated that the right to bear arms is "primarily a collective one." (i suggest you actually read Miller before you throw that at me.)
according to the "collective right" nonsense espoused by the 9th Circuit (and the aclu), the individual has no right to keep and bear arms. if you take the trouble to google for and read the 9th's decision and dissents in Silveira v Lockyer, you'll find that the "collective right" theory says nobody has standing to challenge any infringements upon the second amendment. unless, of course, you think it makes sense for the state to sue itself.
the "People," as properly interpreted throughout the Constitution, refers to individuals that have rights (free speech, trial by jury, security of person and property, etc). if these rights do not belong to individuals (not this "collectivist" bullshit), then they can not be rights. etc, etc, therefore, the second amendment is meaningless to the aclu.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is more hostile to your precious guns than the ACLU ever was.
that may be. doesn't change the fact that the aclu doesn't care.
The constitution gives the individual states the right to form armed militias, not the public the right to bare arms
i couldv'e sworn the second amendment says something about "the right of the people" regarding the "keep[ing] and bear[ing of] arms."
about the in depth analysis of the second amendment, peruse the rest of the comments.
and why is it that the moderatoes insist upon modding anti-gun comments "Informative" (especially when they're demonstrably false, as the parent is) and pro-rights comments as merely "Interesting."
/me dons my tin foil hat and senses that the moderators want to change reality by calling falsehoods "Informative."
After Columbine, they organized a rally in Denver.
wrong. that "rally" was a legally required members' conference that had been on the calendar for months before the Columbine murders. and mindful of the recent (10 days earlier) tragedy, the NRA cancelled the usual "festivities" that accompany their annual meeting.
After the shooting in Flint, Michigan, they organized a rally in Flint.
the political rally to support W didn't have anything to do with the mom that regularly left her kid alone in a crack house. and that, as moore says, "the [Flint] community had just gone through this," is an outright lie. the political rally in question took place 8 (eight) months after the incident.
It was founded the SAME YEAR that the Ku Klux Klan became an official terrorist organization.
so? the NRA was founded by Union generals (you know, the ones that fought to free the slaves) to encourage firearms skills. freed slaves even started NRA chapters so they could get free guns to protect themselves from klan riders.
btw, all forms of early gun control were explicitly or implicitly racist in nature (Jim Crow laws).
the morals of this story? michael moore is a big fat liar, gun control is a racist policy, and guns save lives.
This isn't a gun safety organization. These are people who want to kill.
oh yeah, and you're an ignorant bigot.
from the horse's mouth (Dred Scott decision):
For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens...it [the Constitution] would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." [emphasis added]
And incidentally, the ACLU does fight for the rights of all Americans.
the aclu says the People don't have the right to own firearms, so they don't defend gun-owning citizens. by your logic, the aclu would still be "fight[ing] for the rights of all Americans" if the aclu were to say, "blacks don't have a right to liberty," and then sit idly by while slavery is reinstituted.
nevermind drugs, this could be a great way to screen cargo and baggage for explosives, chemical and biological weapons/agents
For instance if your tires were spinning, it could record you going a lot faster than you actually were, but the blackbox has no way of telling that, it will just simply record the speed your tires were spinning at...regardless of how fast you were going...
an accelerometer could solve that problem, though it's probably overkill. probably way too expensive, too.
finally, i can put all those AOL cd's to good use and fertilize my tomato plants.
cost analysis isn't the only issue. the MA reasoning may be that they want OSS for the freedom of information quality. think about it, if the gov't is using closed source software, for instance, to tally votes, and someone files a FOIA request, they can't exactly get the propriety information (ie, source code).
it almost seems that OSS is absolutely necessary in order for a gov't to be able to comply with the FOIA.
Israel has long been considered to have the best intel/security...perhaps this also says something about computer security? ;)
i'm using a recent nightly build of mozilla (2003101004) under win2k, and it doesn't crash
well, i think MACs are compatible, but other than that, yes...
"The PC, software players, and portable devices must be compliant with current security standards and compatible with the technology that is used to access, deliver, and secure the content."
the PGP "web of trust" scheme might work: everybody signs all the keys of people they know to be human (not spammers), and you select whose signatures you trust, and how many degrees of separation you will trust (this isn't part of the PGP implementation, i don't think, but it's an idea)
was it reverse engineered, or what?
did he get the source from? that's what i want to know.