Hmm, I take your point. However the age where you can enter into a legally binding contract varies between countries. That will be the cause of much wierdness if they try and stick to this.
Also, doesn't restricting access to the software violate the GPL? Corel Linux is sitting ontop of Debian isn't it? In which case it definately violates the Debian social contract.
The question is not so much "who should be allowed to carry guns" as "who should be allowed to decide who gets to carry guns?"
Interesting angle, I hadn't looked at it like that before. I can see the point, however it still seems to me that the entire point of government is to make these decisions. Its the responsibilities vs. rights thing again. In the UK we have responsibilities under the law (and are free to do what we please otherwise), while in the US they have rights (but can't do anything that isn't definined as one of their rights). I guess thats why they're so fierce when it comes to protecting them.
Before anyone jumps me in a back alley, I'd like to point out that I've never said I believe the UK to be a free country, it isn't. But then I don't believe the US is a free country either. Nor do I particularly believe either are true representative democracies.
...look at the signs, guns are more moderated then ever thought possible
Good. One thing I never understood about Americans is their defence of their right to bear arms. Why?
If you tried to give a gun, or the sweeping freedom to own a gun that the Americans have, to a Brit we'd look puzzled and hand it back. You guys don't seem to understand that we don't want guns on our streets.
I remember flying back into the UK to Manchester Airport just after the Manchester bombing a few years back. I hadn't heard anything about it, in fact the bomb had gone off while I was in the air. I landed, got out the plane, and was shocked to see policemen (and women) wandering around in flak jackets with sub-machine guns. The police didn't look too comfortable with their role either. I'd just flown back from South Africa, where everyone had a gun. Heck, the guy I'd been staying with had a gun in his glove box in case he was car jacked on the way to work. When I saw the police carrying guns when I landed at Manchester I almost turned round and tried to book myself on a flight back out of the country.
This is for all those Brits who mock the US for it's lack of freedoms. They look down their noses at our government and say they have just as luch liberty as us.
Suffice to say that anytime I'm in the States I find the culture very oppressive. For instance I was recently in Annapolis at a conference, and I decided to walk from my hotel to the nearby mall. I was stopped by the police on the way, someone had phoned 911 about someone walking along the pavement (sorry, sidewalk) for heaven's sake!
...ours would be in the Supreme Court, I'm assuming there's something at least vaguely similar in the UK
European Court of Human Rights (I guess).
Thank God we have the Bill of Rights, without it, our country would've gone down the tubes long ago.
I think thats the difference between UK (and European) law and the States. Here we have responsibilities under the law, so long as we fufill them we're free to do whatever we like. You guys have rights, your not allowed to do anything other than those things your rights allow you to do.
So, why not have an organization somewhat like the AAA (American Automobile Association), that is funded (at least primarily) directly by the users?
But unlike Triple-A, what exactly could this organization do? Presumably they'd spring into action if your privacy was violated? Sue the offending site? I doubt that $25 a year would cover the cost, especially if the site was located in Outer Mongolia or the like. Which court system would you be able to sue them in anyway? Your country of origin, maybe not, depends on your own countries laws. Their country, maybe not, depends on their countries laws. Neither? Possibily! Both? Unlikely!
Self regulation is a bust, companies will always go with the bottom line, and I doubt that a few law suits against the worst offenders would discourage the bulk of them (you can't sue everyone, especially if your using a court system other than the American one).
IMHO the only solution is to pro-active, don't use products or services from companies that don't respect your privacy. If enough people do this, that will affect they're bottom line.
There are two ways to look at this, if we look at it in the best light possible, what probably happened was that some techie dumped a CDROM onto a PR departments hack's desk and said "Distribute this for Beta test". The PR hack did, attaching the standard legal mumbo jumbo, not knowing what they were doing.
If we look at it in a bad light, then Corel don't have a leg to stand on. The GNU Project guys will crucify them...
I agree, a few months back we invited one of the UK Artemis Society representatives to come and give a seminar to the Astrophysics Group at my University. While the guy had alot of pretty graphics, and some nice ray traced "artists impressions" the talk lacked content.
They are being hopelessly optimistic on cost, my back of the envelope calculations puts them off by a factor of about a hundred (the wrong way). Even if they can cover the cost alot of the "off the shelf" technology they're relying on doesn't exist in hardware anymore. They're talking about using bits a pieces designed for the Apollo programme, since its proven technology it'll be cheaper, right? Erm, nope. We don't even have the tools to make the tools to build some of that stuff anymore.
Great idea, but they're dreaming. Wish I could say otherwise.
I work at the Physics Department at Keele University (the one mentioned in both press releases). We do have a Ted Williams working here, in the mechanical workshop. I think a certain postgrad in the Relativistic Quantum Mechanics group is having the rest of us on...
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I take your point. However the age where you can enter into a legally binding contract varies between countries. That will be the cause of much wierdness if they try and stick to this.
Also, doesn't restricting access to the software violate the GPL? Corel Linux is sitting ontop of Debian isn't it? In which case it definately violates the Debian social contract.
Al.
--
The question is not so much "who should be allowed to carry guns" as "who should be allowed to decide who gets to carry guns?"
Interesting angle, I hadn't looked at it like that before. I can see the point, however it still seems to me that the entire point of government is to make these decisions. Its the responsibilities vs. rights thing again. In the UK we have responsibilities under the law (and are free to do what we please otherwise), while in the US they have rights (but can't do anything that isn't definined as one of their rights). I guess thats why they're so fierce when it comes to protecting them.
Before anyone jumps me in a back alley, I'd like to point out that I've never said I believe the UK to be a free country, it isn't. But then I don't believe the US is a free country either. Nor do I particularly believe either are true representative democracies.
Al.
--
...look at the signs, guns are more moderated then ever thought possible
Good. One thing I never understood about Americans is their defence of their right to bear arms. Why?
If you tried to give a gun, or the sweeping freedom to own a gun that the Americans have, to a Brit we'd look puzzled and hand it back. You guys don't seem to understand that we don't want guns on our streets.
I remember flying back into the UK to Manchester Airport just after the Manchester bombing a few years back. I hadn't heard anything about it, in fact the bomb had gone off while I was in the air. I landed, got out the plane, and was shocked to see policemen (and women) wandering around in flak jackets with sub-machine guns. The police didn't look too comfortable with their role either. I'd just flown back from South Africa, where everyone had a gun. Heck, the guy I'd been staying with had a gun in his glove box in case he was car jacked on the way to work. When I saw the police carrying guns when I landed at Manchester I almost turned round and tried to book myself on a flight back out of the country.
Al.
--
This is for all those Brits who mock the US for it's lack of freedoms. They look down their noses at our government and say they have just as luch liberty as us.
...ours would be in the Supreme Court, I'm assuming there's something at least vaguely similar in the UK
Suffice to say that anytime I'm in the States I find the culture very oppressive. For instance I was recently in Annapolis at a conference, and I decided to walk from my hotel to the nearby mall. I was stopped by the police on the way, someone had phoned 911 about someone walking along the pavement (sorry, sidewalk) for heaven's sake!
European Court of Human Rights (I guess).
Thank God we have the Bill of Rights, without it, our country would've gone down the tubes long ago.
I think thats the difference between UK (and European) law and the States. Here we have responsibilities under the law, so long as we fufill them we're free to do whatever we like. You guys have rights, your not allowed to do anything other than those things your rights allow you to do.
Al.
--
..but isn't the scrapping of the right to jury trial being done to bring us in line with the rest of the EU?
Yes, I believe that is the case.
--
So, why not have an organization somewhat like the AAA (American Automobile Association), that is funded (at least primarily) directly by the users?
But unlike Triple-A, what exactly could this organization do? Presumably they'd spring into action if your privacy was violated? Sue the offending site? I doubt that $25 a year would cover the cost, especially if the site was located in Outer Mongolia or the like. Which court system would you be able to sue them in anyway? Your country of origin, maybe not, depends on your own countries laws. Their country, maybe not, depends on their countries laws. Neither? Possibily! Both? Unlikely!
Self regulation is a bust, companies will always go with the bottom line, and I doubt that a few law suits against the worst offenders would discourage the bulk of them (you can't sue everyone, especially if your using a court system other than the American one).
IMHO the only solution is to pro-active, don't use products or services from companies that don't respect your privacy. If enough people do this, that will affect they're bottom line.
--
There are two ways to look at this, if we look at it in the best light possible, what probably happened was that some techie dumped a CDROM onto a PR departments hack's desk and said "Distribute this for Beta test". The PR hack did, attaching the standard legal mumbo jumbo, not knowing what
they were doing.
If we look at it in a bad light, then Corel don't have a leg to stand on. The GNU Project guys will crucify them...
I agree, a few months back we invited one of the UK Artemis Society representatives to come and give a seminar to the Astrophysics Group at my University. While the guy had alot of pretty graphics, and some nice ray traced "artists impressions" the talk lacked content.
They are being hopelessly optimistic on cost, my back of the envelope calculations puts them off by a factor of about a hundred (the wrong way). Even if they can cover the cost alot of the "off the shelf" technology they're relying on doesn't exist in hardware anymore. They're talking about using bits a pieces designed for the Apollo programme, since its proven technology it'll be cheaper, right? Erm, nope. We don't even have the tools to make the tools to build some of that stuff anymore.
Great idea, but they're dreaming. Wish I could say otherwise.
I work at the Physics Department at Keele University (the one mentioned in both press releases). We do have a Ted Williams working here, in the mechanical workshop. I think a certain postgrad in the Relativistic Quantum Mechanics group is having the rest of us on...