Non-root processes cannot send ICMP packets. Not that it would even need to be ICMP to do what you're saying, though; did you just pick a buzzword without knowing what it means?
However, Wikipedia is _not_ located in Italy. Remember the case a while back when Germany tried to get wikipedia to censor stuff? All they could do was take away the domain name "wikipedia.de" - which isn't even what's normally used to access it (the canonical url for german wikipedia articles starts "de.wikipedia.org" )
Well - congressional aides for some of them, lobbyists for others - but congress's job is to debate on the proposed laws and pass them - writing is for others. (historically, not all congressmen were even literate - that's why there are IIRC three prescribed stages for the proposed bill to be read out loud)
What do the shirts actually look like? From what I've read, Hawaiian shirts as worn on the mainland are a lot more "loud" than ones actually worn in a business context in Hawaii.
If you were a casual observer, looking at the Internet Routing table at... I call BS - nobody who looks at internet routing tables is a casual observer.
That includes things like giving out her name, address, even state to strangers. Can you explain "even state"? California, for example, has a population of 36 million - that's more than some countries, or than speak some languages. And that level of non-disclosure takes non-trivial effort to maintain - can't talk about the current weather, for example, because that can be correlated.
No... you're not understanding me here. Anyone can censor, it's just only *illegal* when the government does it. Nobody is accusing the airlines of anything illegal. But it can still be called "censorship" without being illegal, because censorship simply means suppression of information, whether that is legal or illegal, whether it's by the government or a private business. NOBODY HAS ACCUSED THE AIRLINES OF ANYTHING ILLEGAL!
Again, not so. If private business does it it's just omission of information. Censorship is omission of information -- by the government. That's not what the word _means_, idiot. You just made that up.
Yes, I agree, their censorship was not a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment only prohibits censorship by the government, not by private entities. That does not change the definition of the term "censorship", and is not relevant to this discussion.
The idea that only things prohibited by the first amendment are called "censorship" (and, therefore, that nothing is _not_ prohibited by the first amendment can be called censorship) is the false premise in your argument.
Try getting them prosecuted for censorship. Why? Censorship is not a crime. Doesn't mean it's not happening, and doesn't mean we can't complain about it.
Yes, but you haven't explained why this is a context in which action by a private business cannot be called "censorship". Since it is ordinarily a valid use of the term, the burden is on you to explain why this context is special. You just said "In a context where it's a private business doing it, you can't call something done by a private business censorship" - which is, you know, retarded.
You can lock it while the door is open, and then close it. I have done this. With the car running. On purpose. (it seemed like a good idea at the time - I was running the defroster and didn't want to get it stolen; except - the remote thingy won't open it while it's running)
Its existence was not known. Its membership is not known, and it is certainly not open to all administrators. The owner of the list attempted to conceal her involvement after it was discovered. That is why the "secret" aspect gets emphasized.
Slashdot Mirror
The french tried it. It failed.
If any post should be marked redundant...
If any post should be marked troll...
If any post should be marked flamebait...
How'd he get sole control over the trademark rights?
Non-root processes cannot send ICMP packets. Not that it would even need to be ICMP to do what you're saying, though; did you just pick a buzzword without knowing what it means?
However, Wikipedia is _not_ located in Italy. Remember the case a while back when Germany tried to get wikipedia to censor stuff? All they could do was take away the domain name "wikipedia.de" - which isn't even what's normally used to access it (the canonical url for german wikipedia articles starts "de.wikipedia.org" )
How does that work as applied to corporate property, works-for-hire, etc? Still based on the individual employee who created it?
Well - congressional aides for some of them, lobbyists for others - but congress's job is to debate on the proposed laws and pass them - writing is for others. (historically, not all congressmen were even literate - that's why there are IIRC three prescribed stages for the proposed bill to be read out loud)
You're too late! Someone already replied saying that.
I thought the only tax on vehicles was registration, and isn't that a road usage tax rather than a property tax?
Due to the Berne convention, any such taxation system would have to *start* at the 50-year mark.
What do the shirts actually look like? From what I've read, Hawaiian shirts as worn on the mainland are a lot more "loud" than ones actually worn in a business context in Hawaii.
If you were a casual observer, looking at the Internet Routing table at... I call BS - nobody who looks at internet routing tables is a casual observer.
No... you're not understanding me here. Anyone can censor, it's just only *illegal* when the government does it. Nobody is accusing the airlines of anything illegal. But it can still be called "censorship" without being illegal, because censorship simply means suppression of information, whether that is legal or illegal, whether it's by the government or a private business. NOBODY HAS ACCUSED THE AIRLINES OF ANYTHING ILLEGAL!
Yes, I agree, their censorship was not a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment only prohibits censorship by the government, not by private entities. That does not change the definition of the term "censorship", and is not relevant to this discussion.
The idea that only things prohibited by the first amendment are called "censorship" (and, therefore, that nothing is _not_ prohibited by the first amendment can be called censorship) is the false premise in your argument.
Try getting them prosecuted for censorship. Why? Censorship is not a crime. Doesn't mean it's not happening, and doesn't mean we can't complain about it.
Yes, but you haven't explained why this is a context in which action by a private business cannot be called "censorship". Since it is ordinarily a valid use of the term, the burden is on you to explain why this context is special. You just said "In a context where it's a private business doing it, you can't call something done by a private business censorship" - which is, you know, retarded.
Can you explain how this context means an action not by the government cannot be called censorship? No? Shut up, then.
Do we think Sony would have any trouble getting a certificate to sign a rootkit with, though?
You can lock it while the door is open, and then close it. I have done this. With the car running. On purpose. (it seemed like a good idea at the time - I was running the defroster and didn't want to get it stolen; except - the remote thingy won't open it while it's running)
There are no logs on that page. There used to be a stat page just like that run by someone else, and no-one had a problem with it.
Its existence was not known. Its membership is not known, and it is certainly not open to all administrators. The owner of the list attempted to conceal her involvement after it was discovered. That is why the "secret" aspect gets emphasized.
Right, but if they did charge for them, would it be considered evidence of political corruption?