My access to video games (lets assume for simplicity sake, on my own hardware...say the laptop I bought with my first job at 15) does not effect my parents. I am not "fucking them off" by getting around any restrictions they place on it. The reason why rebeliousness is a virtue is because authority is so easily abused and we need free thinkers to knock the "leaders" down a notch. The obedience enforced by schools and parents trains citizens to be subservient and dependent on those in charge. That kind of mentality makes you not question things you should question as an adult such as why your government is at war or why you never got those penis pills you ordered from that popup advertisement. As corporate elites use DRM and other dirty tricks to restrict our fair use and free speech rights, we need a generation of hackers willing get around these restrictions.
Besides... Hacking also is one of the best ways of gaining more general knowledge. Take Steve Wozniak, the technical genius behind the original apple. He phreaked the phone system back in the 70s and 80s. Or Richard Stallman, the founder of GNU and probably the most popular *nix utilities around. He failed english classes and bounced back and forth between private and public high schools. At Harvard and MIT he was known to participate in "lock hacking," the art of breaking into professors' offices to "liberate" sequestered terminals. Lots of behavior appears social unacceptable actually increeses human freedom. Hackers built the net and are still fighting to keep it free. Sure we might offend those in charge, but in the long run liberty will prevail and result in better technology and a quantative increese in available human knowledge.
If this gets implimented on a wide scale, I think we will see bootable Linux cds with the nvidia kernel and doom3 or halflife2 installed becomming very popular.
I love these kinds of restrictions, they really help kids get creative and find ways around systems of control. It teaches them valuable lessons that they will need later in life as DRM get more and more popular. If we are to live in a free society, we need creative people who can subvert the confinements imposed by parents, churches, governments, and corporations.
You could attempt it yourself, but it's a gamble if your inexperienced.
Your local University or Community College has a Electrical/Electronics Engneering or Technician program with lots of students who will solder stuff for at low cost and might even help teach you how to do it. I've repaired quite a few devices that people brought into the school lab. Call up a professer (or department head if no individual instructor's numbers are public); they will probably be more then willing to give a student some work with real world troubleshooting and repair.
Why can't you restrict access to ssh from the firewall? One solution could be port knocking. You only let your firewall open up ssh after a series of connections on pre-defined parts are made. So say you choose "233 457 69 876 2094 576" to be your "password". You would make a client that would connect to those ports in that order and only after that initiate an ssh connection on port 22.
I've only scimmed the paper, but from the looks of it, a lot of not all that harmful trafic could be labeled "malicious", for example nmap port scans. I use them all the time, not to find valunerable services, but for more general sysadmin stuff.
I agree with your assessment that corporations do not really deserve ANY rights, but under the current legal system corporations are deamed legal persons. This should be changed, but its a seperate issue. I still stand by what I said originally. What if an INDIVIDUAL wants to sell some DRM software? They should be able to do it. You don't need consumer rights, you need human rights. If you give people free speech and free assembly they will form unions and boycots and will crush unjust corporate practices.
And I'm not a corporate whore, I have never worked for a publicly traded corporation (I've done some independent IT work and also some work for local government). I only buy indipendent music. I only run free as in speech operating systems on my computers. (Linux, BSD, and Solaris 10*). I did just drink a diet Pepsi though...so maybe I do deserve the "corporate whore" designation.
*ok....so Solaris's freedom is sort of up in the air.
The bullshit detector can only develop when you have both harmful propaganda and a rational alternative; most Americans have been denied the later. There is not a "Lack of government protection" in the US. Our TV and radio stations are a government enforced monopoly. The FCC only issues liscences to an elite few corporations (with the small but noteable exception of university radio). The internet is the best example we have of a free medium where both the truth and the outragous lies are allowed to propigate. I believe that the truth eventually wins out. This is why wikipedia.org is a better source for information then foxnews.com.
The people in those "socialist" countries appear to be a lot more aware of their freedoms, despite the government giving them many protections.
Governments go do three things regarding the people and corporations: they can help the corporations to the detriment of the people (the US model), or they can help the people by restricting corporations (the state socialist model), or they can leave things be and let the free market decide (the libertarian model....libertarianism can be either capitalist or socialist. Libertarian capitalism assumes the corporations will compete and improve as a result...libertarian socialism assumes that the masses will get sick of the corporate bullshit and take things into their own hands by developing alternative free industries or by unionising, or etc)
I perfer the socialist model to the US (fascist) model, but like the libertarian-socialist model best.
Government should only protect you when you or your property are being PHYSICALLY HARMED
THe money in the bank - should the gov't not protect that?
From harm (like theft), yes.
There are many more ways to hurt a person, non-physically then physically (i.e. identity theft).
Depends on what you mean by identity theft. If you collect a bunch of personal information on someone through legitimate means (like asking them for it...no breaking and entering for example), then you may in some way be copying their identity , but you are not commiting a crime because noone is harmed. If you use that data to impersonate your victum and steal money from their account or commit a crime under their name, then they are harmed; this should be illegal. If you just use their ID to order a beer, then noone is harmed and the government should not be involved even though you are impersonating that person. Emotional harm to too hard to establih. Anyone can use "emotional harm" to control someone else. Like I can say the seeing breasts (or any other human body part for that matter....say eyes) is extremely traumatising to me. I can use this to control what can be put on TV. BAN ALL IMAGES OF EYES!!! THEY DISGUST ME AND ARE CORRUPTING MY CHILDREN!!!! Physical harm is easy to establish. It is any modification of the body or property of a person without their consent.
The DMCA is unjust, but so are laws saying that an entity can't try to sell you a dvd that you can't easily copy.
Trying to have your cake or eat it to? It is either you are allowed to copy movies, or you are not. Saying the law is stupid is just plain silly
You can copy all you want. Someone can also sell you a DVD that they claim you cannot copy. DRM is a technology, not a law. It's an attempt to restrict consummer rights, and it will always be broken (rightfully so). But it may still be useful from the corporate perspective. If only an elite few know how to break the DRM, then the ignorant masses will just buy the product and use it in the way the corporation wants them too.
In that case I would like to purchase five ICBM's, an M1A1 Abrams, an M-16-2, and a F-1 Hornet.
The purpose of the second ammendment, according to the founding fathers, was to give the citizens the same firepower as the government so they they could stage a revolution if the government became unjust.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson
In the nuclear age, this is impractical. A more rational solution would be for the government to reduce its arsonal to a sane level. Although this would be nice, its unlikely to happen with any easy. There would have to be a massive popular movement for disarmmement. I dont' believe corporations or governments should have any more rights to dangerous weapons then individuals.
I don't support the PATRIOT act or the DMCA. I agree with your assessment that corporations do not really deserve ANY rights, but under the current legal system corporations are deamed legal persons. This should be changed, but its a seperate issue. I still stand by what I said originally. What if an INDIVIDUAL wants to sell some DRM software? They should be able to do it. You don't need consumer rights, you need human rights. If you give people free speech and free assembly they will form unions and boycots and will crush unjust corporate practices. We don't need the government to decide what is dangerous or true. Blatant lying in advertising and selling hazardous products should be allowed because I believe people are the best judges of what is true, not the government. If the masses are so easily duped, they are idiots and get what they deserve. You can't save people from themselves. (Think of the irrational drug war) If you allow free speech, eventually people will learn who they can trust. Compare a heavily government regulated media-- TV, to a free one--the Internet. On TV there a quite a narow corporate agenda that nevertheless is mostly free from blatent lies and the selling of dangerous things. The internet containes lots of harmful and false information, but also has data on issues that corporations refuse to report. The diversity and freedom of the internet creates smarter media consummers.
Government should only protect you when you or your property are being PHYSICALLY HARMED! Anti-drinking and driving legislation IS wrong. (but not socialist). If you can drive safely with a high blood alcohol level, what crime is being committed? Government has a monopoly on the use of physical coersion and that power should not be used lightly. In court both you and the RIAA/MPAA should be equil (I know the current system with high paid attorneys does not allow for this...it needs reform). Moveover, you shouldn't even be taken to court unless you physicaly harmed someone or some thing. The DMCA is unjust, but so are laws saying that an entity can't try to sell you a dvd that you can't easily copy. Certainly the military can be used for defense, not attack (like the US military has been ). The law is not wrong because it protect people. It is wrong because it restricts the free speech rights of the media seller. Protecting people is fine, but you can't protect people from themselves. This is why anti-drug laws are wrong. If you wanna buy something that some people deam "harmful" be it gunpowder, a joint, a computer, a DRMed piece of software, whatever....you should be allowed to purchase it. This is even more true when the product is information, which should be protected under the first ammendment.
I believe that people are naturally independent minded and disrespectful of authority. They only become mindless livestock when they've been thoroughly indoctronated in an ideology of subservient obedience. This mentality is intoduced and enforced by the school system (compulsory education is totally unacceptable in a free society) and through conservative capitalist dominated media. If the airwaves were not regulated, analog communication would be impossable because everyone would croud out the spectrum; so digital spread spectrum technology would make great advances and TV and radio would become more like the internet in that anyone who could afford the equiptment could become a media provider. Get rid of government, and corporate control of public speech will wilt away. Anarchism or Libertarianism is a much better way to destroy the corporate elites then any socialist policy. Government reforms mean that real people are not the ones taking direct action to stop a problem. Reform allows the original issue to fester under the surface. It's better to deregulate and wait for things to get bad enough to make the population take things into it's own hands and permenantly solve the problem. Besides..... if corporations can convince you to obay them, good for you, why should I get in the way? If people don't think they have fair use, let them be. If you sell yourself into slavery, you get what you deserve. Perhaps if we allow for a certain degree of social evolution, the masses will either sequester themselves to the Wal Marts and churches and leave us thinking people to ourselves or they will finally get the picture and emancipate themselves.
**I'm probably comming off as a wanna-be elitist asshole here...maybe I am being a bit radical; I'm sort of throwing some ideas out.
If you really believe in free speech you should admit that Corporations and individuals both should have the right to distribute (and sell) any kind of information they want. Anti-DRM leglisation is socialist and wrong. If citizens get too used to the government protecting them, they will have weak bullshit detectors and will become dependent on the nanny state to tell them how to be "free". As long as no person or property is physically harmed, the government should stay the fuck out of the way. Bring the DRM on!!! Let the idiotic masses pay too much for RIAA music and MPAA movies that they can only watch in very restricted ways. Anyone with at least some partially functioning cognative tissue in their heads will just find innovative indipendent artists. A new market for cheep intelligent media that allows fair use (probably distributed via the internet) will emerge.
You're probably correct about Chomsky being somewhat motivated by money; I'm sure his book and lecture recording deals bring in a pritty penney. However, I think his politics go much deeper then that. First of all, he's remained politically active in several forums, and has even been arrested at protests. Second of all, there are several people who are not anarchaists who he has cited and praised the work of. NC has come out in support of much of the work of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is about as far from an anarchaist as you can get; he's written for the imperialist think tank Project For a New American Century. Chomsky and Hitchens have written both in support and criticism for various portions of each other's work.
Chomsky also puts a lot of his work online for free for someone motivated by profit. http://www.chomsky.info/ http://www.zmag .org/chomsky/index.cfm
(An intresting side note: Noam Chomsky has copyrighed his more recent writting, not to himself, but to his family. Perhaps he is in worse health then he has publicaly disclosed.)
NC has a lot of important things to say and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts the more conservative popular voices. Radicals should also not take his word as the gospel truth and only use it as a starting point for their own inquiry into more primary sources.
I wonder if this research supports or refutes the conclusions made by MIT's most famous linguist, Noam Chomsky, regarding language acquisition and development.
They could just charge you for the DSL service and still run -48vDC on the line; it won't hurt you any. They don't have to actually assign a phone number to the line and won't have to pay for the load on there SS7 system to route the calls. Actually at least around here (suburban Illinois), mid 1990's DSL was a seperate line that your paid for totally seperatly from your phone service. I just upgraded mine to the kind that shares a line with the PSTN, and its a lot faster.
OK....so this article is subtitled: "But this could not happen to municipal WiFi".
What is scary is...it could. Governments love to censor: schools, libraries, wherever. The dumbass christian fundementalists majority is just too powerful a voting block. Corporate monopolised wifi isn't much better, with high prices and coverage only in proftiable areas. What we need is local small buisness and free workers who are also users (syndicalist economics!). We need wifi collectives and cooperatives to allow true free democratic network access. Lets stop bitching about how our plutocratic lords won't give us wireless internet, and lets show 'em and and do it better ourselves! Leave your access access points set to SSID "default". Offer free pre-wimax or at least 802.11g to your neighbors. Start a town wide project with your frieds who also have networking experience.
I'm not avocating everyone get stoned every day. However, I think a lot of the best minds of our time were influenced by drugs in a posative way. Carl Segan believed he was able to come up with some of his best ideas after using marijuana, and just about every modern musician has had some drug influences. President JFK was an addict, as was mathematician Paul Erdos. Recreational drugs can destroy lives, and can inhances them, we need a safe and easy way to learn about them, not a paranoid and unrealistic Drug War.
If at any point before or after contact one partner says "STOP" or expresses any notion of not enjoying the experience, then the act could be considdered rape....but why should age have anything to do with any of this? Everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm* someone else's body or property. Yep....I'm a radical libertarian like that.
*Harm is defined as modificatoin without consent...so any contact with a human body that is not consented can be delcared illegal. Any contact that both participants want and enjoy should be legal, regardless of age.
Ya ya ya..I know the repressed anti-social geek is the steriotype... "Getting some" is more luck then skill or attitude or anything else. You just gotta be in the right place at the right time to meet.... ummmm intresting people. Perhaps it's impolite to brag. I probably run the risk of going so far as to strike fear and disbelief into the hearts of slashdot's users. If you don't believe me, fine; but please don't mod this down any more. You have to admit that people mature at different rates and that teens are perfectly capable of making good choices if we give them some responsabilities. If we continue to shelter them from the world, what will happen on the day they turn 18? Will they magicly be transformed into wise mature adults? I don't think so.... We belong to an interdependent society. Your peers will be voting, working, and living with you, they have to grow up some time. Moreover, restricting other people's consentual behavior is anti-libertarian and illiberal. It defies any ethical system of law. Why do we stand for it?
Who cares!? 15 is plenty old enough for sexual consent; why when I was 15 I had already done just about everything one can do with a girl (and a couple of the things one can do with two girls!). Most of it I had talked with her about it online first. Treating teenagers like babies turns them into subservient immature adults. Lets lower or eliminate the age of consent.
If your gonna label, I'm more punk then hippy, although I am active in some ecological work. I don't abuse drugs. I have no problem with trying anything that won't perminently harm me, but I don't use anything more then a couple times. As for Darwin...I think we need more selective factors for natural selection to have some role in our species development. As it is the stupid and weak are the most likely to reproduce. Perhaps we need to give them an easy way to kill themselves before they weeken humanity. It sounds fascist, but maybe its really more libertarian.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations! You just defined Anarchism! I still think google does a better job of it though.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q= define%3Aanarchism&btnG=Search
My access to video games (lets assume for simplicity sake, on my own hardware...say the laptop I bought with my first job at 15) does not effect my parents. I am not "fucking them off" by getting around any restrictions they place on it. The reason why rebeliousness is a virtue is because authority is so easily abused and we need free thinkers to knock the "leaders" down a notch. The obedience enforced by schools and parents trains citizens to be subservient and dependent on those in charge. That kind of mentality makes you not question things you should question as an adult such as why your government is at war or why you never got those penis pills you ordered from that popup advertisement. As corporate elites use DRM and other dirty tricks to restrict our fair use and free speech rights, we need a generation of hackers willing get around these restrictions.
Besides... Hacking also is one of the best ways of gaining more general knowledge. Take Steve Wozniak, the technical genius behind the original apple. He phreaked the phone system back in the 70s and 80s. Or Richard Stallman, the founder of GNU and probably the most popular *nix utilities around. He failed english classes and bounced back and forth between private and public high schools. At Harvard and MIT he was known to participate in "lock hacking," the art of breaking into professors' offices to "liberate" sequestered terminals. Lots of behavior appears social unacceptable actually increeses human freedom. Hackers built the net and are still fighting to keep it free. Sure we might offend those in charge, but in the long run liberty will prevail and result in better technology and a quantative increese in available human knowledge.
If this gets implimented on a wide scale, I think we will see bootable Linux cds with the nvidia kernel and doom3 or halflife2 installed becomming very popular.
I love these kinds of restrictions, they really help kids get creative and find ways around systems of control. It teaches them valuable lessons that they will need later in life as DRM get more and more popular. If we are to live in a free society, we need creative people who can subvert the confinements imposed by parents, churches, governments, and corporations.
You could attempt it yourself, but it's a gamble if your inexperienced.
Your local University or Community College has a Electrical/Electronics Engneering or Technician program with lots of students who will solder stuff for at low cost and might even help teach you how to do it. I've repaired quite a few devices that people brought into the school lab. Call up a professer (or department head if no individual instructor's numbers are public); they will probably be more then willing to give a student some work with real world troubleshooting and repair.
I'm with ya all the way.
Why can't you restrict access to ssh from the firewall? One solution could be port knocking. You only let your firewall open up ssh after a series of connections on pre-defined parts are made. So say you choose "233 457 69 876 2094 576" to be your "password". You would make a client that would connect to those ports in that order and only after that initiate an ssh connection on port 22.
I've only scimmed the paper, but from the looks of it, a lot of not all that harmful trafic could be labeled "malicious", for example nmap port scans. I use them all the time, not to find valunerable services, but for more general sysadmin stuff.
And I'm not a corporate whore, I have never worked for a publicly traded corporation (I've done some independent IT work and also some work for local government). I only buy indipendent music. I only run free as in speech operating systems on my computers. (Linux, BSD, and Solaris 10*). I did just drink a diet Pepsi though...so maybe I do deserve the "corporate whore" designation.
*ok....so Solaris's freedom is sort of up in the air.
The people in those "socialist" countries appear to be a lot more aware of their freedoms, despite the government giving them many protections.
Governments go do three things regarding the people and corporations: they can help the corporations to the detriment of the people (the US model), or they can help the people by restricting corporations (the state socialist model), or they can leave things be and let the free market decide (the libertarian model....libertarianism can be either capitalist or socialist. Libertarian capitalism assumes the corporations will compete and improve as a result...libertarian socialism assumes that the masses will get sick of the corporate bullshit and take things into their own hands by developing alternative free industries or by unionising, or etc)
I perfer the socialist model to the US (fascist) model, but like the libertarian-socialist model best.
From harm (like theft), yes.
There are many more ways to hurt a person, non-physically then physically (i.e. identity theft).
Depends on what you mean by identity theft. If you collect a bunch of personal information on someone through legitimate means (like asking them for it...no breaking and entering for example), then you may in some way be copying their identity , but you are not commiting a crime because noone is harmed. If you use that data to impersonate your victum and steal money from their account or commit a crime under their name, then they are harmed; this should be illegal. If you just use their ID to order a beer, then noone is harmed and the government should not be involved even though you are impersonating that person. Emotional harm to too hard to establih. Anyone can use "emotional harm" to control someone else. Like I can say the seeing breasts (or any other human body part for that matter....say eyes) is extremely traumatising to me. I can use this to control what can be put on TV. BAN ALL IMAGES OF EYES!!! THEY DISGUST ME AND ARE CORRUPTING MY CHILDREN!!!! Physical harm is easy to establish. It is any modification of the body or property of a person without their consent.
The DMCA is unjust, but so are laws saying that an entity can't try to sell you a dvd that you can't easily copy. Trying to have your cake or eat it to? It is either you are allowed to copy movies, or you are not. Saying the law is stupid is just plain silly
You can copy all you want. Someone can also sell you a DVD that they claim you cannot copy. DRM is a technology, not a law. It's an attempt to restrict consummer rights, and it will always be broken (rightfully so). But it may still be useful from the corporate perspective. If only an elite few know how to break the DRM, then the ignorant masses will just buy the product and use it in the way the corporation wants them too.
In that case I would like to purchase five ICBM's, an M1A1 Abrams, an M-16-2, and a F-1 Hornet.
The purpose of the second ammendment, according to the founding fathers, was to give the citizens the same firepower as the government so they they could stage a revolution if the government became unjust.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson
In the nuclear age, this is impractical. A more rational solution would be for the government to reduce its arsonal to a sane level. Although this would be nice, its unlikely to happen with any easy. There would have to be a massive popular movement for disarmmement. I dont' believe corporations or governments should have any more rights to dangerous weapons then individuals.
I don't support the PATRIOT act or the DMCA. I agree with your assessment that corporations do not really deserve ANY rights, but under the current legal system corporations are deamed legal persons. This should be changed, but its a seperate issue. I still stand by what I said originally. What if an INDIVIDUAL wants to sell some DRM software? They should be able to do it. You don't need consumer rights, you need human rights. If you give people free speech and free assembly they will form unions and boycots and will crush unjust corporate practices. We don't need the government to decide what is dangerous or true. Blatant lying in advertising and selling hazardous products should be allowed because I believe people are the best judges of what is true, not the government. If the masses are so easily duped, they are idiots and get what they deserve. You can't save people from themselves. (Think of the irrational drug war) If you allow free speech, eventually people will learn who they can trust. Compare a heavily government regulated media-- TV, to a free one--the Internet. On TV there a quite a narow corporate agenda that nevertheless is mostly free from blatent lies and the selling of dangerous things. The internet containes lots of harmful and false information, but also has data on issues that corporations refuse to report. The diversity and freedom of the internet creates smarter media consummers.
Government should only protect you when you or your property are being PHYSICALLY HARMED! Anti-drinking and driving legislation IS wrong. (but not socialist). If you can drive safely with a high blood alcohol level, what crime is being committed? Government has a monopoly on the use of physical coersion and that power should not be used lightly. In court both you and the RIAA/MPAA should be equil (I know the current system with high paid attorneys does not allow for this...it needs reform). Moveover, you shouldn't even be taken to court unless you physicaly harmed someone or some thing. The DMCA is unjust, but so are laws saying that an entity can't try to sell you a dvd that you can't easily copy. Certainly the military can be used for defense, not attack (like the US military has been ). The law is not wrong because it protect people. It is wrong because it restricts the free speech rights of the media seller. Protecting people is fine, but you can't protect people from themselves. This is why anti-drug laws are wrong. If you wanna buy something that some people deam "harmful" be it gunpowder, a joint, a computer, a DRMed piece of software, whatever....you should be allowed to purchase it. This is even more true when the product is information, which should be protected under the first ammendment.
I believe that people are naturally independent minded and disrespectful of authority. They only become mindless livestock when they've been thoroughly indoctronated in an ideology of subservient obedience. This mentality is intoduced and enforced by the school system (compulsory education is totally unacceptable in a free society) and through conservative capitalist dominated media. If the airwaves were not regulated, analog communication would be impossable because everyone would croud out the spectrum; so digital spread spectrum technology would make great advances and TV and radio would become more like the internet in that anyone who could afford the equiptment could become a media provider. Get rid of government, and corporate control of public speech will wilt away. Anarchism or Libertarianism is a much better way to destroy the corporate elites then any socialist policy. Government reforms mean that real people are not the ones taking direct action to stop a problem. Reform allows the original issue to fester under the surface. It's better to deregulate and wait for things to get bad enough to make the population take things into it's own hands and permenantly solve the problem. Besides..... if corporations can convince you to obay them, good for you, why should I get in the way? If people don't think they have fair use, let them be. If you sell yourself into slavery, you get what you deserve. Perhaps if we allow for a certain degree of social evolution, the masses will either sequester themselves to the Wal Marts and churches and leave us thinking people to ourselves or they will finally get the picture and emancipate themselves.
**I'm probably comming off as a wanna-be elitist asshole here...maybe I am being a bit radical; I'm sort of throwing some ideas out.
If you really believe in free speech you should admit that Corporations and individuals both should have the right to distribute (and sell) any kind of information they want. Anti-DRM leglisation is socialist and wrong. If citizens get too used to the government protecting them, they will have weak bullshit detectors and will become dependent on the nanny state to tell them how to be "free". As long as no person or property is physically harmed, the government should stay the fuck out of the way. Bring the DRM on!!! Let the idiotic masses pay too much for RIAA music and MPAA movies that they can only watch in very restricted ways. Anyone with at least some partially functioning cognative tissue in their heads will just find innovative indipendent artists. A new market for cheep intelligent media that allows fair use (probably distributed via the internet) will emerge.
You're probably correct about Chomsky being somewhat motivated by money; I'm sure his book and lecture recording deals bring in a pritty penney. However, I think his politics go much deeper then that. First of all, he's remained politically active in several forums, and has even been arrested at protests. Second of all, there are several people who are not anarchaists who he has cited and praised the work of. NC has come out in support of much of the work of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is about as far from an anarchaist as you can get; he's written for the imperialist think tank Project For a New American Century. Chomsky and Hitchens have written both in support and criticism for various portions of each other's work.
g .org/chomsky/index.cfm
Chomsky also puts a lot of his work online for free for someone motivated by profit.
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://www.zma
(An intresting side note: Noam Chomsky has copyrighed his more recent writting, not to himself, but to his family. Perhaps he is in worse health then he has publicaly disclosed.)
NC has a lot of important things to say and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts the more conservative popular voices. Radicals should also not take his word as the gospel truth and only use it as a starting point for their own inquiry into more primary sources.
I wonder if this research supports or refutes the conclusions made by MIT's most famous linguist, Noam Chomsky, regarding language acquisition and development.
I have searched and have found: http://deansplanet.com/natalie_portman-stripper_po le.html
Now all I need are some hot grits.
They could just charge you for the DSL service and still run -48vDC on the line; it won't hurt you any. They don't have to actually assign a phone number to the line and won't have to pay for the load on there SS7 system to route the calls. Actually at least around here (suburban Illinois), mid 1990's DSL was a seperate line that your paid for totally seperatly from your phone service. I just upgraded mine to the kind that shares a line with the PSTN, and its a lot faster.
OK....so this article is subtitled: "But this could not happen to municipal WiFi".
What is scary is...it could. Governments love to censor: schools, libraries, wherever. The dumbass christian fundementalists majority is just too powerful a voting block. Corporate monopolised wifi isn't much better, with high prices and coverage only in proftiable areas. What we need is local small buisness and free workers who are also users (syndicalist economics!). We need wifi collectives and cooperatives to allow true free democratic network access. Lets stop bitching about how our plutocratic lords won't give us wireless internet, and lets show 'em and and do it better ourselves! Leave your access access points set to SSID "default". Offer free pre-wimax or at least 802.11g to your neighbors. Start a town wide project with your frieds who also have networking experience.
I'm not avocating everyone get stoned every day. However, I think a lot of the best minds of our time were influenced by drugs in a posative way. Carl Segan believed he was able to come up with some of his best ideas after using marijuana, and just about every modern musician has had some drug influences. President JFK was an addict, as was mathematician Paul Erdos. Recreational drugs can destroy lives, and can inhances them, we need a safe and easy way to learn about them, not a paranoid and unrealistic Drug War.
If at any point before or after contact one partner says "STOP" or expresses any notion of not enjoying the experience, then the act could be considdered rape....but why should age have anything to do with any of this? Everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm* someone else's body or property. Yep....I'm a radical libertarian like that.
*Harm is defined as modificatoin without consent...so any contact with a human body that is not consented can be delcared illegal. Any contact that both participants want and enjoy should be legal, regardless of age.
Ya ya ya..I know the repressed anti-social geek is the steriotype... "Getting some" is more luck then skill or attitude or anything else. You just gotta be in the right place at the right time to meet.... ummmm intresting people. Perhaps it's impolite to brag. I probably run the risk of going so far as to strike fear and disbelief into the hearts of slashdot's users. If you don't believe me, fine; but please don't mod this down any more. You have to admit that people mature at different rates and that teens are perfectly capable of making good choices if we give them some responsabilities. If we continue to shelter them from the world, what will happen on the day they turn 18? Will they magicly be transformed into wise mature adults? I don't think so.... We belong to an interdependent society. Your peers will be voting, working, and living with you, they have to grow up some time. Moreover, restricting other people's consentual behavior is anti-libertarian and illiberal. It defies any ethical system of law. Why do we stand for it?
Who cares!? 15 is plenty old enough for sexual consent; why when I was 15 I had already done just about everything one can do with a girl (and a couple of the things one can do with two girls!). Most of it I had talked with her about it online first. Treating teenagers like babies turns them into subservient immature adults. Lets lower or eliminate the age of consent.
If your gonna label, I'm more punk then hippy, although I am active in some ecological work. I don't abuse drugs. I have no problem with trying anything that won't perminently harm me, but I don't use anything more then a couple times. As for Darwin...I think we need more selective factors for natural selection to have some role in our species development. As it is the stupid and weak are the most likely to reproduce. Perhaps we need to give them an easy way to kill themselves before they weeken humanity. It sounds fascist, but maybe its really more libertarian.
I've been useing this:e rproxy
http://packages.debian.org/stable/web/filt