Thank you for bringing us back on topic. The Jesus thing was simply an analogy to illustrate what I'm saying. I'm not going to devote any more time on this thread about that. You can hear profoundly elequent statements come from truly horrible people(trying to keep it generic to avoid another spin-off on a silly tangent), and people will oooh and aaah all over it...until they hear who said it. All of a sudden it's a load of crap. This also goes for those here who won't accept a correct statement because it was posted anonymously. This is the message I'm trying to get across. Now if that message comes from one of the high priests of slashdot, it will, of course acquire a lot of attention from mods and members alike. Coming from me, it might or might not be widely ignored or even disparaged. I don't care. I'm still going to post it because I feel it's important, and there's a chance somebody will see it and respond. I apologize in advance for my poor writing skills:-)
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Too many people are hung up on the messenger as opposed to the message. That's why the big stink over phoney bloggers. In fact look at the people who preach up and down about Jesus. It's all about the man, and little if any about his message. I've noticed the same thing with some people right here on slashdot with those who won't listen the ACs no matter what was posted. If they wish to remain ignorant, it's their choice, and their loss, but it makes me have second thoughts as to whether they should allowed to vote in anything outside their local elections. I don't like the thought of people from Utah voting for politicians who believe they have a right to break into my computer in Peoria.
No but a gun to back it up sure as hell will, if that's what it takes to defend my right to say what I want, and protect myself from dumbasses who can't control themselves. Fight fire with fire as the case may be. It's a perfectly valid way to defend the written law. Cops use them all the time. If you can't accept the 1st amendment thet way it was explicitly written, and you can't take the words at face value, then change the damn thing. Don't go making up restrictions that aren't there. "no Law" implies nothing. It obligates the government to protect my rights as stated from precisely any consequences you may wish to inflict. Unless you simply respond with more speech.
We had upward of 80%+ polling that they wanted nothing to do with that little exercise, but our PM chose to go ahead anyway...
And he was re-elected, too.
...all beaming (literally, ridiculously) with pride when Dubya called him "his deputy sherriff"!
Did he give him a bullet to keep in his shirt pocket?
"There once was a deputy called Fife, Who carried a gun and a knife. The gun was all dusty, And his knife was all rusty, Because he never caught a crook in his life."
Sorry, man. I can't help myself these days. I would still move to Australia the first chance I get. What's Broome like?
Yes but the point was that they don't guarantee completely unrestricted free speech...
Unlike the Americans. Too bad there's nobody that will honor the guarantee. That EU law looks more like Chinese law than anything else. It guarantees nothing. The illusion seems to work pretty good for the person you responded to.
Regulating speech is against the law(the annotations are NOT the law) in the US. No matter how badly the judges read it. They are in violation and should be removed from the bench, AND they should be charged with violating their oath, which is to uphold the written law.
I don't generally care for "black-and-white" interpretations of the text of the Constitution, but I find it funny that they don't even often mean what their promoters think they do.
Then who is anybody to decide what the constitution means? Just take the written words at their face value. What is there to make anybody think that THAT was not the framers' intentions? The qualifiers and restrictions belong on paper, not the now empty skulls of a bunch of dead guys, and they belong specifically in the constitution, not some long lost notes. If the framers believed that "no law" requires qualification, they should have written them in. But they didn't. So, for me, the law stands as written, and what is written is, "...no law..."
Reality is based on perception. There is nothing else you can possibly base it on. And two people with the same perception or point of view does NOT make something anymore real. It just means that they agree.
"Useless" blanket clauses are still much better than vague buzzwords like "crime" and "disorder". Unwritten restrictions are just as bad. The restrictions must be specific and precise. There is no vagueness in "no law". It doesn't get more precise than that. I want the same precision from the law as it demands from me while fighting off politically motivated trumped up drug or sexual offense charges.
...maybe giving people the option to upgrade DVD discs to HD-DVD for the same content may encourage them to continue buying media.
The whole purpose of "upgrading" the media is to make you re-purchase the content. We wouldn't have DVDs at all if that wasn't their intent. If they simply wanted us to have better storage media, they would encourage the fabrication of VHS to DVD recorders.
If you start demanding they are hooked non-stop to Internet so they can receive the daily patches, it may just be the thing crossing the line of tolerance.
Maybe that's why they want run internet through the power cord. Then you're only way out will an online UPS.
The country wasn't even ten years old when the violations started with the Aliens and Sedition Act(and probably before that). As long as I'm not stuck with the paperwork, taxes don't mean much to me. I always negociate what I net(even after what I think I'll have to pay to the accountant to do said paperwork) before I sign any contracts. Anything beyond what I take home is completely irrelevant. It only exists to the bean counters. Since I'm not being paid to count other peoples' beans, I'm not interested in them.
You're right about the property thing. I believe that if I paid the mafia, they would protect my property a helluvalot better than the government would. Either way, you really "own" nothing at all. But I have to admit, the illusion is still holding up pretty well...as long as people keep the faith. Our economy is a really a religion. It runs on pure faith, nothing more.
Do you also absolve the hundreds of parents who leave firearms where kids can get them? After all, the parent didn't pull the trigger.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children until they reach "legal" maturity. Even for what they say. People who can't control their actions are the same types that will tell you, "The devil made me do it." Now if you're willing to say that we don't have a free will, then we can move on to a possible solution. But free will means self control. If you can't control yourself, I can guarantee you that offense speech is not the real problem. But controlling it with law is the easy solution for the lazy who can't control their own behavior, so they feel the need to control others.
I'm for anything at all that will wake people up to the tyrrany of IP law. Keep it coming. Lockdown Windows. These are the things we need to provoke action, unfortunately. So, Bring it on! Until we puke.
In a free country you don't have to answer to anyone. The right not to speak is just as important as the right to speak freely. Bah! Screw it! You people don't want freedom. You* just want pink ponies and everybody to agree with you. You* made it quite clear over the last couple of days that you all have absolutely no idea of what freedom is. That it doesn't come conditionally. You either have it, or you don't. Believe me when I tell you, you don't have it. All you have is the police to protect you as long as you pay your taxes. You know what? So does China. Pay enough money, and you can have all the "freedom" you want. No matter where you are.
...the guy posting the rumour is effectively pulling the trigger and is hence the assassin.
The guy posting the rumor manufactured the gun and left it on the table. He didn't pull the trigger. That's a big difference. Are you one of those types that believe a manufacturer should be liable if the product is used to commit a crime? In addition to guns, how 'bout knives, and scissors, and automobiles, or a bar of soap? If something is used to commit crime, I want you to go after the perpetrator, not the tool he used. I want you to charge him with the crime, not the method used to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for bringing us back on topic. The Jesus thing was simply an analogy to illustrate what I'm saying. I'm not going to devote any more time on this thread about that. You can hear profoundly elequent statements come from truly horrible people(trying to keep it generic to avoid another spin-off on a silly tangent), and people will oooh and aaah all over it...until they hear who said it. All of a sudden it's a load of crap. This also goes for those here who won't accept a correct statement because it was posted anonymously. This is the message I'm trying to get across. Now if that message comes from one of the high priests of slashdot, it will, of course acquire a lot of attention from mods and members alike. Coming from me, it might or might not be widely ignored or even disparaged. I don't care. I'm still going to post it because I feel it's important, and there's a chance somebody will see it and respond. I apologize in advance for my poor writing skills:-)
Maybe he's as real as PJ...
Well, she's not here.
Is that even illegal?
Unfortunately there are people who are trying to make it that way. Coming soon to a country near you.
Too many people are hung up on the messenger as opposed to the message. That's why the big stink over phoney bloggers. In fact look at the people who preach up and down about Jesus. It's all about the man, and little if any about his message. I've noticed the same thing with some people right here on slashdot with those who won't listen the ACs no matter what was posted. If they wish to remain ignorant, it's their choice, and their loss, but it makes me have second thoughts as to whether they should allowed to vote in anything outside their local elections. I don't like the thought of people from Utah voting for politicians who believe they have a right to break into my computer in Peoria.
No but a gun to back it up sure as hell will, if that's what it takes to defend my right to say what I want, and protect myself from dumbasses who can't control themselves. Fight fire with fire as the case may be. It's a perfectly valid way to defend the written law. Cops use them all the time. If you can't accept the 1st amendment thet way it was explicitly written, and you can't take the words at face value, then change the damn thing. Don't go making up restrictions that aren't there. "no Law" implies nothing. It obligates the government to protect my rights as stated from precisely any consequences you may wish to inflict. Unless you simply respond with more speech.
We had upward of 80%+ polling that they wanted nothing to do with that little exercise, but our PM chose to go ahead anyway...
...all beaming (literally, ridiculously) with pride when Dubya called him "his deputy sherriff"!
And he was re-elected, too.
Did he give him a bullet to keep in his shirt pocket?
"There once was a deputy called Fife,
Who carried a gun and a knife.
The gun was all dusty,
And his knife was all rusty,
Because he never caught a crook in his life."
Sorry, man. I can't help myself these days. I would still move to Australia the first chance I get. What's Broome like?
Betcha I can make a script to install those programs and probably some smileys along with them remotely from here without any prompting at all.
Something about sharks and professional courtesy come to mind...
Maybe because they're part of the "Cult of the Willing"? You're not getting "ginned up" for a fight, are you? :-)
Yes but the point was that they don't guarantee completely unrestricted free speech...
Unlike the Americans. Too bad there's nobody that will honor the guarantee. That EU law looks more like Chinese law than anything else. It guarantees nothing. The illusion seems to work pretty good for the person you responded to.
Speech is regulated as it is for a reason.
Regulating speech is against the law(the annotations are NOT the law) in the US. No matter how badly the judges read it. They are in violation and should be removed from the bench, AND they should be charged with violating their oath, which is to uphold the written law.
Too bad you feel that way. I'm lots of fun to be with :-) I generally don't get too mad, unless the waiter is too slow bringing the drinks.
I don't generally care for "black-and-white" interpretations of the text of the Constitution, but I find it funny that they don't even often mean what their promoters think they do.
Then who is anybody to decide what the constitution means? Just take the written words at their face value. What is there to make anybody think that THAT was not the framers' intentions? The qualifiers and restrictions belong on paper, not the now empty skulls of a bunch of dead guys, and they belong specifically in the constitution, not some long lost notes. If the framers believed that "no law" requires qualification, they should have written them in. But they didn't. So, for me, the law stands as written, and what is written is, "...no law..."
Reality is based on perception. There is nothing else you can possibly base it on. And two people with the same perception or point of view does NOT make something anymore real. It just means that they agree.
define "no law". And make it specific and precise.
"Useless" blanket clauses are still much better than vague buzzwords like "crime" and "disorder". Unwritten restrictions are just as bad. The restrictions must be specific and precise. There is no vagueness in "no law". It doesn't get more precise than that. I want the same precision from the law as it demands from me while fighting off politically motivated trumped up drug or sexual offense charges.
...maybe giving people the option to upgrade DVD discs to HD-DVD for the same content may encourage them to continue buying media.
The whole purpose of "upgrading" the media is to make you re-purchase the content. We wouldn't have DVDs at all if that wasn't their intent. If they simply wanted us to have better storage media, they would encourage the fabrication of VHS to DVD recorders.
If you start demanding they are hooked non-stop to Internet so they can receive the daily patches, it may just be the thing crossing the line of tolerance.
Maybe that's why they want run internet through the power cord. Then you're only way out will an online UPS.
The country wasn't even ten years old when the violations started with the Aliens and Sedition Act(and probably before that). As long as I'm not stuck with the paperwork, taxes don't mean much to me. I always negociate what I net(even after what I think I'll have to pay to the accountant to do said paperwork) before I sign any contracts. Anything beyond what I take home is completely irrelevant. It only exists to the bean counters. Since I'm not being paid to count other peoples' beans, I'm not interested in them.
You're right about the property thing. I believe that if I paid the mafia, they would protect my property a helluvalot better than the government would. Either way, you really "own" nothing at all. But I have to admit, the illusion is still holding up pretty well...as long as people keep the faith. Our economy is a really a religion. It runs on pure faith, nothing more.
Do you also absolve the hundreds of parents who leave firearms where kids can get them? After all, the parent didn't pull the trigger.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children until they reach "legal" maturity. Even for what they say. People who can't control their actions are the same types that will tell you, "The devil made me do it." Now if you're willing to say that we don't have a free will, then we can move on to a possible solution. But free will means self control. If you can't control yourself, I can guarantee you that offense speech is not the real problem. But controlling it with law is the easy solution for the lazy who can't control their own behavior, so they feel the need to control others.
I'm for anything at all that will wake people up to the tyrrany of IP law. Keep it coming. Lockdown Windows. These are the things we need to provoke action, unfortunately. So, Bring it on! Until we puke.
In a free country you don't have to answer to anyone. The right not to speak is just as important as the right to speak freely. Bah! Screw it! You people don't want freedom. You* just want pink ponies and everybody to agree with you. You* made it quite clear over the last couple of days that you all have absolutely no idea of what freedom is. That it doesn't come conditionally. You either have it, or you don't. Believe me when I tell you, you don't have it. All you have is the police to protect you as long as you pay your taxes. You know what? So does China. Pay enough money, and you can have all the "freedom" you want. No matter where you are.
*editorial
"100% Overrated"
Yeah the simple solutions often are overrated. Sadly, I suppose that's why they are never applied and frequently ignored.
...the guy posting the rumour is effectively pulling the trigger and is hence the assassin.
The guy posting the rumor manufactured the gun and left it on the table. He didn't pull the trigger. That's a big difference. Are you one of those types that believe a manufacturer should be liable if the product is used to commit a crime? In addition to guns, how 'bout knives, and scissors, and automobiles, or a bar of soap? If something is used to commit crime, I want you to go after the perpetrator, not the tool he used. I want you to charge him with the crime, not the method used to do it.