I'm not aware of any such right. Surely you have a right to not listen to them, but there is no right to not be offended that I recognize.
Ignorance is no excuse, but kudos for admitting it. I said nothing about being offended, so your attempt at a straw man argument fails.
"Freedom of speech" does not include forcing speech upon individuals who do not wish to hear that speech.
Snyder v. Phelps was decided because the speech took place on public property (a sidewalk), and did not directly interfere with the funeral ("Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."), an indication that the court considered that a significant factor in allowing the speech.
One person's rights end where another's begin. They have the right to free speech, just as those holding a funeral have a right to avoid unwanted speech.
If you disagree with that, post your address, and we'll get someone in front of your house with a bullhorn at 2 AM so they can exercise their freedoms.
Colonel Harland David Sanders (September 9, 1890 â" December 16, 1980) was an American businessman and restaurateur who founded the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant chain.
If, unlike the typical/.er, you took the time to actually read the article and not just the summary, you would know that it takes 12 people to do this sort of thing.
Is there any chance that they're using sterile water heated to almost the boiling point to melt a passage through ice to get to water isolated for up to 5e5 years?
"Free Speech provisions in the constitution do not apply unless the Service provider is a Government entity."
While that's true, service providers do make use of public resources (physical rights-of-way, RF spectrum, etc.) to deliver service, which makes them a proper target of regulation. They should not be allowed to unilaterally decide on what content they transmit or deliver. Any filtering should only be done under the control of the end user. Control, not approval, to avoid the problem caused by un-negotiable "contract" terms, where an SP might try to say "by using our service, you accept our filtering."
"Rich people DO recieve more from government than average people. It always surprises me how republicans in particular seem to not grasp this concept, as it's based on the primary purpose of government; protecting taxpayers' property."
"if I make $100 and you make $10,000. I'm going to pay $20 in income tax while you'll pay $2000. On the surface that seems fair,"
That doesn't seem fair at all. Why should I pay more than you when we receive exactly the same government services? In fact, you would receive more services in a modern "entitlement" society. There's nothing "fair" about expecting me to pay more simply because I make more money. I thought communism ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need") had been repudiated.
Why do you as a provider get to set the price of a brick? Why is it any less logical for the buyer to set the price? (Assume all bricks are the same)
If I'm a brick store and you're the only brick mfg, I have to pay what you want, or I go out of business. But, if there are other brick manufacturers, and I'm the brick store, I may buy bricks from the mfg who offers the cheapest bricks. That results in a competitive market.
If I'm the ONLY brick store, I could dictate the price I will pay, take the profit I want, and there's no free market. Or, I can set a margin, and you'll take it if you want to sell bricks through a store. You compete with other brick mfgs on an equal basis, and there's a competitive market for the consumer.
You're right, that's completely NOT fair, because someone who makes more pays more, but receives nothing more from government. What would be fair is everyone gets sent a bill for $X, which is the same for everyone.
I wouldn't consider him for an instant. This just demonstrates poor critical reasoning, valuing a piece of paper acquired by any means over actual subject matter knowledge.
The FSF has explained what "third party" means in GPLv2, and it is different than what you claim.
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
You don't have any understanding of radio, or its importance to the operation of a commercial aircraft, do you? Please give a (non-intentional) mechanism where any of the items you mention can interfere with aircraft operations.
"with 2 iPads in each cockpit I'm sure we would have seen a problem by now."
But with 100 random, untested devices in the cabin, you don't know there won't be any problems. Additionally, having 2 in direct control of the flight crew, who can easily switch them off quickly should there be any issue is quite different than trying to get 100 people to turn them off (if you fly, then you know that does not happen quickly).
A wiser company might have included well defined renewal terms, perhaps an inflation adjusted flat rate plus adders for number of users and bandwidth utilization.
They say the cost is "far in excess" of what they were previously paying, but "tens of thousands of pounds a year" is far less than a single employee costs, so it's not unreasonable to think that perhaps it wasn't a profitable proposition for GLU/Gamespy. Perhaps there were terms of the type described, the success of the game caused the user/bandwidth adders to increase, and this is just a case of trying to redirect customer anger because Rebellion doesn't want to foot the bill for an older game, despite its success.
You call it "mediocre," but it won game of the year, has good ratings, was successful enough to spawn a sequel, and has enough of a continuing user base to get angered by this event, requiring in a public response by the publisher. None of which support the adjective "mediocre".
analysts see stuff like this and make assumptions about the number of customers,
Their problem, he made no claim about the number of customers. First of all, it was already public info that they were almost at 1e9 hours, so saying they hit that level is hardly "material." Secondly, it can easily be explained by existing users simply watching more in June than in May, due to school aged children being home during the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignorance is no excuse, but kudos for admitting it. I said nothing about being offended, so your attempt at a straw man argument fails.
"Freedom of speech" does not include forcing speech upon individuals who do not wish to hear that speech.
Snyder v. Phelps was decided because the speech took place on public property (a sidewalk), and did not directly interfere with the funeral ("Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."), an indication that the court considered that a significant factor in allowing the speech.
One person's rights end where another's begin. They have the right to free speech, just as those holding a funeral have a right to avoid unwanted speech.
If you disagree with that, post your address, and we'll get someone in front of your house with a bullhorn at 2 AM so they can exercise their freedoms.
Colonel Harland David Sanders (September 9, 1890 â" December 16, 1980) was an American businessman and restaurateur who founded the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant chain.
Really.
we could probably use a computer to figure out the answers to those questions!
If, unlike the typical /.er, you took the time to actually read the article and not just the summary, you would know that it takes 12 people to do this sort of thing.
Is there any chance that they're using sterile water heated to almost the boiling point to melt a passage through ice to get to water isolated for up to 5e5 years?
as you've discovered, it's made up of a bunch of yahoos.
Well, it's simple to vote again.
Just permanently delete your account, as described here. I just did.
Excellent. I don't get paid in government issued scrip, so I don't need to count what I'm paid as income, right?
"Where I live, the sender pays for text messages...Problem solved. I don't get any spam."
How does that work in someplace where text messages are free (or more correctly, unlimited, with no incremental cost)?
Where you live, can someone not send you a text message using email, via a gateway of some sort? If so, how does the sender get billed?
"Free Speech provisions in the constitution do not apply unless the Service provider is a Government entity."
While that's true, service providers do make use of public resources (physical rights-of-way, RF spectrum, etc.) to deliver service, which makes them a proper target of regulation. They should not be allowed to unilaterally decide on what content they transmit or deliver. Any filtering should only be done under the control of the end user. Control, not approval, to avoid the problem caused by un-negotiable "contract" terms, where an SP might try to say "by using our service, you accept our filtering."
"Rich people DO recieve more from government than average people. It always surprises me how republicans in particular seem to not grasp this concept, as it's based on the primary purpose of government; protecting taxpayers' property."
Income != assets.
"if I make $100 and you make $10,000. I'm going to pay $20 in income tax while you'll pay $2000. On the surface that seems fair,"
That doesn't seem fair at all. Why should I pay more than you when we receive exactly the same government services? In fact, you would receive more services in a modern "entitlement" society. There's nothing "fair" about expecting me to pay more simply because I make more money. I thought communism ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need") had been repudiated.
Why do you as a provider get to set the price of a brick? Why is it any less logical for the buyer to set the price? (Assume all bricks are the same)
If I'm a brick store and you're the only brick mfg, I have to pay what you want, or I go out of business. But, if there are other brick manufacturers, and I'm the brick store, I may buy bricks from the mfg who offers the cheapest bricks. That results in a competitive market.
If I'm the ONLY brick store, I could dictate the price I will pay, take the profit I want, and there's no free market. Or, I can set a margin, and you'll take it if you want to sell bricks through a store. You compete with other brick mfgs on an equal basis, and there's a competitive market for the consumer.
"if everyone pays 20% income tax it's FAIR"
You're right, that's completely NOT fair, because someone who makes more pays more, but receives nothing more from government. What would be fair is everyone gets sent a bill for $X, which is the same for everyone.
We don't have to worry about the Sirians, their navigation doesn't work.
I wouldn't consider him for an instant. This just demonstrates poor critical reasoning, valuing a piece of paper acquired by any means over actual subject matter knowledge.
-- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
Which makes sense, since the first two parties are the two involved in the license, "any third party" is anyone else.
You don't have any understanding of radio, or its importance to the operation of a commercial aircraft, do you? Please give a (non-intentional) mechanism where any of the items you mention can interfere with aircraft operations.
Not only are you crude, but you also don't have a life, if 10 minutes without your precious causes you grief.
"with 2 iPads in each cockpit I'm sure we would have seen a problem by now."
But with 100 random, untested devices in the cabin, you don't know there won't be any problems. Additionally, having 2 in direct control of the flight crew, who can easily switch them off quickly should there be any issue is quite different than trying to get 100 people to turn them off (if you fly, then you know that does not happen quickly).
A wiser company might have included well defined renewal terms, perhaps an inflation adjusted flat rate plus adders for number of users and bandwidth utilization.
They say the cost is "far in excess" of what they were previously paying, but "tens of thousands of pounds a year" is far less than a single employee costs, so it's not unreasonable to think that perhaps it wasn't a profitable proposition for GLU/Gamespy. Perhaps there were terms of the type described, the success of the game caused the user/bandwidth adders to increase, and this is just a case of trying to redirect customer anger because Rebellion doesn't want to foot the bill for an older game, despite its success.
You call it "mediocre," but it won game of the year, has good ratings, was successful enough to spawn a sequel, and has enough of a continuing user base to get angered by this event, requiring in a public response by the publisher. None of which support the adjective "mediocre".
Rebellion (and others) hitched their wagon to some proprietary technology without having long term contracts in place. Shame on them.
Their problem, he made no claim about the number of customers. First of all, it was already public info that they were almost at 1e9 hours, so saying they hit that level is hardly "material." Secondly, it can easily be explained by existing users simply watching more in June than in May, due to school aged children being home during the day.
"he has been arrested in Guatemala after trying to enter the country illegally."
You'd think he'd know better than to try and use a Trojan horse.