The fact of the matter is, you are free to say whatever you want, but not without consequences.
I'm really confused by this consequences thing popular on slashdot lately with respect to free speech. The definition above encompasses all countries.
Someone in a dictatorship can say whatever they want against the government, but you can bet they have consequences too. So they have free speech too? Or are we going to claim there is a fine line somewhere?
"Free Speech" doesn't mean that you get to say whatever you want to say all the time without consequences.
How can it be defined any other way? People in China can say whatever they want, but there are consequences (assuming they are not forced to wear a muzzle). If the same applies to the US, how are we different?
On one of the bonus features of one star wars dvd I remember one quote from Lucas along the lines of "We didn't have enough money for tons of Wookie suits, so we chopped them in half and called them Ewoks". I'm 100% sure of the second half of the line, because it was memorable, so I think the first part is accurate too.
That being said, eating meat isn't necessary anymore.
I'm sure you can think of other things you do that aren't necessary yet have some environmental cost to them. Using a computer, maybe? It's always a balance.
Security vs convenience is not something most admins realize exist. Yes, it really is a balance. Encryption is fine, but thin client terminals? Sheesh.
Private information today seems pretty much like a can of worms. It's GOING to get out at some point, it seems.
I almost wonder if we should be concentrating a bit more on ASSUMING it's going to get out, and design our society (ha!) so that the damage is minimal when it does get out.
Really, there are two reasons for locking things down a bit.
1) Money. You want to sell them ringtones and services separately. This to me is what the cell companies do with other phones.
2) User-friendliness. Your company wants a very known process for activation, getting applications. Less options, but easier to support and means that users can't normally get themselves into trouble installing possible rogue apps. This is what apple has always been about, and my guess as to why the iPhone is locked down.
I'm really surprised more slashdotters don't understand that this has always been what apple does. Less options, but more stability and smaller set of conditions for issues to arise.
If you don't have that, you get a Microsoft OS (development free for all).
They don't sell unlimited bandwidth. They sell unlimited USE AT a certain bandwidth. That is what they mean by unlimited. That can be unlimited if they don't oversell, but obviously they do. So, yes, there is such a thing as unlimited... unlimited USE at a certain bandwidth.
I'm sick of people taking moral guidance from laws. That leads to a messed up society... the one we are headed that is run by corporations where "law == morals"
Think about it like this (since your analogy is flawed a bit)...
Person A creates product X, and has infinite quantity of item X.
Person B's life would be improved if he had some of item X.
Person C has infinite quantity of item X.
Person B: "May I buy some X please? It would make me happy!"
Person A: "No."
Person B: "Person C has some X, and has offered some to me, may I use some of his please?"
Person A: "No."
Person A does not deserve to live in a civilized society. How can you deny someone something you have an infinite quantity of when they have no other method to get it, and it would improve their life?
Whether I find it useful as a search engine or not, I will find at least some gratification in that I can do nothing but delete all search results from experts-exchange.com
Yes, I'm bitter, I can't count the number of wasted clicks on their search results from google. Now that google cache doesn't work with experts-exchange, it is nothing but a time waster.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact of the matter is, you are free to say whatever you want, but not without consequences.
I'm really confused by this consequences thing popular on slashdot lately with respect to free speech. The definition above encompasses all countries.
Someone in a dictatorship can say whatever they want against the government, but you can bet they have consequences too. So they have free speech too? Or are we going to claim there is a fine line somewhere?
"Free Speech" doesn't mean that you get to say whatever you want to say all the time without consequences.
How can it be defined any other way? People in China can say whatever they want, but there are consequences (assuming they are not forced to wear a muzzle). If the same applies to the US, how are we different?
Then you have Microsoft employees where finding open source apps on your computer is a chairable offense.
Ah, so we see the quote really meant...
"London Stock Exchange Chooses (Windows) Over (Linux For Reliability)"
realwomansolympics.com is available
Can we seriously learn what the word bricked means, please?
That's a great question to ask. Good comment.
On one of the bonus features of one star wars dvd I remember one quote from Lucas along the lines of "We didn't have enough money for tons of Wookie suits, so we chopped them in half and called them Ewoks". I'm 100% sure of the second half of the line, because it was memorable, so I think the first part is accurate too.
That being said, eating meat isn't necessary anymore.
I'm sure you can think of other things you do that aren't necessary yet have some environmental cost to them. Using a computer, maybe? It's always a balance.
Security vs convenience is not something most admins realize exist. Yes, it really is a balance. Encryption is fine, but thin client terminals? Sheesh.
One level of accountability and humans that never make mistakes.
Private information today seems pretty much like a can of worms. It's GOING to get out at some point, it seems.
I almost wonder if we should be concentrating a bit more on ASSUMING it's going to get out, and design our society (ha!) so that the damage is minimal when it does get out.
If this is the definition of free speech in America, then how are we different from China? I've always wondered that.
I bet some might say that freedom and the preservation of it might be worth messing up some games.
Some might even say no cost is too high.
Really, there are two reasons for locking things down a bit.
1) Money. You want to sell them ringtones and services separately. This to me is what the cell companies do with other phones.
2) User-friendliness. Your company wants a very known process for activation, getting applications. Less options, but easier to support and means that users can't normally get themselves into trouble installing possible rogue apps. This is what apple has always been about, and my guess as to why the iPhone is locked down.
I'm really surprised more slashdotters don't understand that this has always been what apple does. Less options, but more stability and smaller set of conditions for issues to arise.
If you don't have that, you get a Microsoft OS (development free for all).
What would a data ninja be?
Would that be a data pirate on a tor network?
YA RLY!
(just for the record, that was painful, but it couldn't be left dangling any longer)
Somehow this didn't make me feel any better.
This really needs to be insightful.
They don't sell unlimited bandwidth. They sell unlimited USE AT a certain bandwidth. That is what they mean by unlimited. That can be unlimited if they don't oversell, but obviously they do. So, yes, there is such a thing as unlimited... unlimited USE at a certain bandwidth.
Oh, us Americans and our cars. Didn't the joke originate as a train?
Also likely is that we've actually got reasonable methods to purchase (DRM free) music online now.
Well put.
I'm sick of people taking moral guidance from laws. That leads to a messed up society... the one we are headed that is run by corporations where "law == morals"
Think about it like this (since your analogy is flawed a bit)...
Person A creates product X, and has infinite quantity of item X.
Person B's life would be improved if he had some of item X.
Person C has infinite quantity of item X.
Person B: "May I buy some X please? It would make me happy!"
Person A: "No."
Person B: "Person C has some X, and has offered some to me, may I use some of his please?"
Person A: "No."
Person A does not deserve to live in a civilized society. How can you deny someone something you have an infinite quantity of when they have no other method to get it, and it would improve their life?
Whether I find it useful as a search engine or not, I will find at least some gratification in that I can do nothing but delete all search results from experts-exchange.com
Yes, I'm bitter, I can't count the number of wasted clicks on their search results from google. Now that google cache doesn't work with experts-exchange, it is nothing but a time waster.