Maybe I get some popularity, and I set up a Google Ad-Words campaign, but have the proceeds directly routed to Ralph Nader's Presidential fund or Rush Limbaugh's legal defence fund. Should my anonymity be protected here? Hint: yes.
Your intent here is obviously one of good faith based on political principals that most people could identify with. It becomes much harder to defend such a practice in real life. There is in fact a website with a.gov name that makes available contact information to anyone who has made a campaign contribution. There are 17 people in my zip code who have made campaign contributions, mostly to democrats. I could visit each of them at home, assuming they supplied valid contact information. The purpose of this, I suppose, is to prevent big business from slipping big kickbacks anonymously to politicians. Corporations still have control of government, and private individuals political preferences don't remain private. What else is new.
I don't disagree with you in concept, but campaign contributions are strictly regulated. I think Nader in your example would need to submit your real contact information in order to stay legal, thus defeating your example.
Sorry, but this isn't talking about how your phone number is listed in the phone book or other public phone database, but it's talking about the contact information that must be submitted in order to register a DNS. This data then becomes public. The question is whether people should be allowed to mark this information as private (like you would an unlisted number) within this database. Law enforcement could then use it when necessary, but you wouldn't be harassed if someone took offense to something posted on your website (for example).
I don't know what the major differences might be inside the kernels, but I can tell you that the decision to use BSD was a direct result of licensing. If They used Linux, they would have needed to release any changes they made under the GPL. Under the BSD license they can keep those proprietary. They are, of course, still Apple. It may have been a wise decision to use a UNIX like kernel, though, in order to take advantage of OSS. That's my bet.
I mean, who gives a damn about GNOME vs. KDE? What Linux needs are developers who follow a singular mission (or, rather, several singular missions, but not a mission for every developer!). I'm sure there were a lot of blacks in America who hated riding in the back of the bus, but until the Civil Rights Movement, there wasn't a cohesive strategy for every indivdual to work towards...
I was rather hoping that Peren's "user-linux" was going to be along those lines. I doubt GPL programmers are going to marshal behind a single commercial distribution Red Hat had a nice go, but look at the Fedora controversy and you'll get my point. I think Debian is in the best political position in this respect to make the move, but (my opinion) they specifically need to improve their none-CLI usability in order to gain the traction they obviously want.
I think it can happen, but I'm still waiting...
I know that was a joke, but mine has a reset button on the back. Oddly enough, it doesn't delete all my files when it reboots.(In other words, yes, I've had to use it.;)
There's already a huge industry out there for "Organic" food, why can't both co-exist?
Because, when organic foods no longer produce natural crop (because of cross-pollination) there will no longer be that choice. Organics may still stick around in opposition to pesticides, but will no longer have the "purity" that health nuts rave about. If I may use a metaphor, this is one arena that Microsoft and Linux may not be able to peacefully co-exist. You say there is choice, many say choice will unavoidably go away. They are making their choice now while they feel they still can.
I think he's talking about haveing a box of cerial that accidentaly has "the morning after pill" baked in. If that hit the press it would be very bad for buizness
It's not right, but we all need to understand that, for the most part, the RIAA isn't (shouldn't be) being hurt legally. When some one receives music in any form other than what is being sold, the commercial distributors are economically hurt. Too bad. In the unlikely event that an artist places an MP3 on his/her web site, that hurt the distributors. They are being bypassed. That's economics. Places where someone could legitimately take exception to this are (1) in the case of the artists who aren't getting their cut, and (2) in the cases where the recording studio was paid for by the label.
Disclaimer: I don't use Kazaa, I believe it to be illegal.
Counter Disclaimer: I believe the RIAA to be a nasty set of incumbent corporations legally preventing that which should be an inevitable result of the digital age.
Any other thoughts by someone who better knows the recording industry or copyright law?
A valid point. The first flight that the article points out though is to show that their equipment works. It might not be a history of success, but it will significantly help them market.
The fundamental theories of the US are religious ones. The idea that all men are created with equal worth and have certain inalienable rights has no bearing whatsoever in the scientific world. For all observed intents and purposes, evil dictatorship is not significantly different than democracy. It's once you define what your trying to achieve that major differences appear. From the framework we normally call "Freedom" it's a matter of making moral decisions that fit reasonably within everyone's religious values, and leaving alone those decisions that need not be made for the good of society.
Where we get into trouble is where we cannot agree on which framework to use. For instance, let's look at abortion from the most fundamental level. It has been well established in our values that children, once born, have certain inalienable rights (as citizens, though immature). The big question is whether or not unborn children have these rights yet, or not. Scientifically speaking, to the best of our knowledge, no one has these rights. Yet our culture and freedom have been enriched by them. Any decision reached would be out of religious nature, whether Judeo/Christian/Muslim, Eastern, Atheist, or other. The measure of a good moral decision is in the consideration it gives to people with different values.
Gambling has similar issues, though they're not quite as pronounced.
It is a separation of church and state, not values and state. Otherwise we would have been in trouble long ago.
Are you kidding, if (or more likely when) the personal computer industry got back on it's feet games would pick up very quickly. It might not be the same companies, but there will still be heavy competition. Besides, if MS went down it would likely be over a period of time (not instantly) with obvious contenders. People would see who was takeing MS out and eventualy bite the bullet and learn to use it.
rfid tags will likely be hidden in most product in order to prevent shoplifters from yanking the tags out before walking away with the goods. When manufactures start building rfid tags into their products, requiring tags won't be a problem. Imagine if you will, tags being build into the soles of shoes so that Payless doesn't get ripped off. Most people will eventually be tagged and not even know it. Stores will no longer see a need to give loyalty discounts; they will track most people anyway. Corporate boards will say: "Let the tinfoil hat people (literally) dig out whatever tags they find, those people are less marketable anyway."
That is, if we assume merchandise is to be tagged.
I'm all for the right to bear arms, but something here worries me.
Combine your post and your.sig and you'll know one reason why we have gun control.
It's not all an attempt to restrain "crime" (in the way we normally think of it), but also a fear of vigilantes (sometimes acting contrary to law).
If we want the right to bear arms, then other voters are going to need to understand that criminals are going to get weapons on the black market anyway, and those who legitimately own guns are going to abide by the law (my worry). I understand that you weren't literally serious, but it doesn't instill confidence in me about your owning a gun.
If we call Jupiter a gas giant, can we call Pluto a ice midgit?
When looking at the vast differences in other planets, is there yet a significant scientific reason to classify Pluto as something different.
(That is the question.)
What would happen the first time someone spoofed one of these companies in attacking at another company with a counter strike practice in place? Counter strikes are unlikely to be tit for tat, but a little bit more. It would be likely to escalate between the two until one of them gave up. Two innocent parties duking it out.
A white list or reverse DNS lookup might prevent this. Other thoughts?
I took a tour of the FDIC in San Francisco a while back. The tour guide did mention that damaged money can be returned if they can identify unique bills. One guy apparently had his wallet eaten by a cow. He killed the cow and returned the mostly digested paper to the bank. They were able to refund him about $50 out of his $100. (It's been a while, so I wouldn't trust the details, but it is what she said.)
I'm not terrorably concerned with the goverment tracking the movement of money, they do allready. The real concern that we need to have with rfid is that we can be essentially fingerprinted based on the unique blend of objects that we carry around with us every day.
This is a concern, but not the only one. I don't want a thug with a scanner to pick me as a target because he already knows how much money I have in my pocket.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with you in concept, but campaign contributions are strictly regulated. I think Nader in your example would need to submit your real contact information in order to stay legal, thus defeating your example.
(of course, ianal)
Sorry, but this isn't talking about how your phone number is listed in the phone book or other public phone database, but it's talking about the contact information that must be submitted in order to register a DNS. This data then becomes public. The question is whether people should be allowed to mark this information as private (like you would an unlisted number) within this database. Law enforcement could then use it when necessary, but you wouldn't be harassed if someone took offense to something posted on your website (for example).
I don't know what the major differences might be inside the kernels, but I can tell you that the decision to use BSD was a direct result of licensing. If They used Linux, they would have needed to release any changes they made under the GPL. Under the BSD license they can keep those proprietary. They are, of course, still Apple. It may have been a wise decision to use a UNIX like kernel, though, in order to take advantage of OSS. That's my bet.
I know that was a joke, but mine has a reset button on the back. Oddly enough, it doesn't delete all my files when it reboots.(In other words, yes, I've had to use it.;)
As an after thought, that IS what pollen was designed to do.
I think he's talking about haveing a box of cerial that accidentaly has "the morning after pill" baked in. If that hit the press it would be very bad for buizness
It's not right, but we all need to understand that, for the most part, the RIAA isn't (shouldn't be) being hurt legally. When some one receives music in any form other than what is being sold, the commercial distributors are economically hurt. Too bad. In the unlikely event that an artist places an MP3 on his/her web site, that hurt the distributors. They are being bypassed. That's economics. Places where someone could legitimately take exception to this are (1) in the case of the artists who aren't getting their cut, and (2) in the cases where the recording studio was paid for by the label.
Disclaimer: I don't use Kazaa, I believe it to be illegal.
Counter Disclaimer: I believe the RIAA to be a nasty set of incumbent corporations legally preventing that which should be an inevitable result of the digital age.
Any other thoughts by someone who better knows the recording industry or copyright law?
Anyone post a mirror?
A valid point. The first flight that the article points out though is to show that their equipment works. It might not be a history of success, but it will significantly help them market.
The fundamental theories of the US are religious ones. The idea that all men are created with equal worth and have certain inalienable rights has no bearing whatsoever in the scientific world. For all observed intents and purposes, evil dictatorship is not significantly different than democracy. It's once you define what your trying to achieve that major differences appear. From the framework we normally call "Freedom" it's a matter of making moral decisions that fit reasonably within everyone's religious values, and leaving alone those decisions that need not be made for the good of society.
Where we get into trouble is where we cannot agree on which framework to use. For instance, let's look at abortion from the most fundamental level. It has been well established in our values that children, once born, have certain inalienable rights (as citizens, though immature). The big question is whether or not unborn children have these rights yet, or not. Scientifically speaking, to the best of our knowledge, no one has these rights. Yet our culture and freedom have been enriched by them. Any decision reached would be out of religious nature, whether Judeo/Christian/Muslim, Eastern, Atheist, or other. The measure of a good moral decision is in the consideration it gives to people with different values.
Gambling has similar issues, though they're not quite as pronounced.
It is a separation of church and state, not values and state. Otherwise we would have been in trouble long ago.
Are you kidding, if (or more likely when) the personal computer industry got back on it's feet games would pick up very quickly. It might not be the same companies, but there will still be heavy competition. Besides, if MS went down it would likely be over a period of time (not instantly) with obvious contenders. People would see who was takeing MS out and eventualy bite the bullet and learn to use it.
Haveing trouble paying the bills I see.
Thats what I'm running now. I think 9.1 is going to use KDE 3.2
Most don't know the problem of large stores like Walmart. It only hit me while taking a sociology course.
rfid tags will likely be hidden in most product in order to prevent shoplifters from yanking the tags out before walking away with the goods. When manufactures start building rfid tags into their products, requiring tags won't be a problem. Imagine if you will, tags being build into the soles of shoes so that Payless doesn't get ripped off. Most people will eventually be tagged and not even know it. Stores will no longer see a need to give loyalty discounts; they will track most people anyway. Corporate boards will say: "Let the tinfoil hat people (literally) dig out whatever tags they find, those people are less marketable anyway."
That is, if we assume merchandise is to be tagged.
I'm all for the right to bear arms, but something here worries me.
.sig and you'll know one reason why we have gun control.
Combine your post and your
It's not all an attempt to restrain "crime" (in the way we normally think of it), but also a fear of vigilantes (sometimes acting contrary to law).
If we want the right to bear arms, then other voters are going to need to understand that criminals are going to get weapons on the black market anyway, and those who legitimately own guns are going to abide by the law (my worry). I understand that you weren't literally serious, but it doesn't instill confidence in me about your owning a gun.
If we call Jupiter a gas giant, can we call Pluto a ice midgit?
When looking at the vast differences in other planets, is there yet a significant scientific reason to classify Pluto as something different.
(That is the question.)
If one is suffering from a gunshot wound, is the only course of action to disarm ones assailant? No, but it would be a necessary step.
Symptoms often become separate problems that must also be treated.
I don't believe this to be off topic, but a statement that the parent post was off topic.
Give him a break.
What would happen the first time someone spoofed one of these companies in attacking at another company with a counter strike practice in place? Counter strikes are unlikely to be tit for tat, but a little bit more. It would be likely to escalate between the two until one of them gave up. Two innocent parties duking it out.
A white list or reverse DNS lookup might prevent this. Other thoughts?
Emphasis theirs.
I took a tour of the FDIC in San Francisco a while back. The tour guide did mention that damaged money can be returned if they can identify unique bills. One guy apparently had his wallet eaten by a cow. He killed the cow and returned the mostly digested paper to the bank. They were able to refund him about $50 out of his $100. (It's been a while, so I wouldn't trust the details, but it is what she said.)