And to paraphrase what's been so well said, so many times...the speech most in need of protection is precisely that speech which most members of society would find the most offensive.
And some of us ARE against the control of all substances. The simplest way to kill off the dangerous home meth labs overnight is to allow (and regulate) its production by legitimate sources. Same for any drug. That will also simultaneously defund the gangs, mobs, and cartels that distribute this stuff-why buy the stuff illegally from your corner dealer when you can buy it legally at half the price and ten times the quality at the corner store?
Yes, it is clear. RIM made something extremely useful to millions and millions of people. NTP laid in wait to trip them up and mug them. Arguing whether what they had would have eventually turned out to be a real gun or a water pistol doesn't change their "bad guy" status here.
Ah, the old GPL troll! Is that still floating around?
Personally, I don't believe there should be any restrictions on personal, not-for-profit copying, and no "license" should be able to change that. That should be true whether said license is standard copyright, the GPL, or the MS EULA.
On the other hand, -commercial-, for-profit copying, is what copyright is intended to, and should, regulate. In that case, you should be restricted-whether by the GPL, standard copyright, the MS EULA, or anything else.
For regular consumers, it should be you pay the tax and do as you like. Long as you're not profiting. If they would reform copyright to such a reasonable state, I would gladly grant that you too would have the right to distribute GPL stuff as binaries-so long as it's not for commercial purposes!
I know your comment was a joke, but actually in many countries there's a tax on blank media that goes to content providers. So...in many cases, blanks DO count.
Unfortunately, while what you say regarding bureaucratic inefficiencies has some merit, what that would result in is affluent areas (with their associated high tax base) having excellent schools, while poor areas would have hardly any, and those that did exist would be very poor quality. This would contribute to urban decay and the development of "ghetto" areas along racial and class lines. You already see this to an alarming degree.
If some type of local educational revenue-sharing model could be established, I believe the idea could work, but such things exist in very few areas.
No need for any -actual- event, even. If you can get away with shooting an unarmed man with no connection to terrorism, just on the grounds of terrorism in general, one would imagine you could push this through pretty easily with the same tactics.
Oh, I'm well aware of how that works. When I used to do manufacturing myself, we had a "house brand", as well as doing private-labeling for several better-known companies. Several of us were looking through one of the Grainger catalogs there one day, and we found that the "national brand" parts were being sold for almost double the price of our "house" brand! This for something that was built on the same line, by the same people, out of the same parts, and run through the same tests.
Seems an awful lot like fraud to me. Though I never tested it, I'd bet you if I called up the "national" company and asks who makes their stuff, they wouldn't tell you. I have no problem -when- the actual manufacturer is listed and known, but if you don't include a "Manufactured for X Corp. by Y Industries", you're not informing the consumer.
That's also what we call "fraud", or at the very least unethical. Why do people so often think that just because something exists in the "real world", it's automatically acceptable?
I'm not trying to flame you on that, I see/hear that quite a bit. "Well in the REAL WORLD...". In the real world, isn't there some type of ethical standard for corporations, or does that apply only to individuals?
You look at all of the famous genocidal monsters of the 20th century. All but one was a socialist.
Look at the happiest, most prosperous countries in the world. All but one is socialist.
Your logic doesn't hold. "It's been done wrong, therefore it's impossible to do right" is silly, as would my (farcical) assertion that "It's been done right, so it's impossible to do wrong."
Socialism and capitalism are -economic- methods. They are not methods of government-those are types like dictatorship and democracy. (And for your information, there have been -several- repressive fascist regimes, as well as several repressive socialist ones. The only thing they had in common was that they were all dictatorships!) And no, socialism is not theft. There is nothing wrong with saying "Those who are members of our society are expected to contribute in any way they can to make it better, including materially if possible." I see, however, that there -is- something wrong with saying "Go ahead and eat your filet mignon! It doesn't matter that the guy outside is starving. You EARNED it, and his starvation is all his own fault. The fact that you had wealthy parents and got a free ride through Stanford, and his parents were both crackheads who beat the crap out of him, means nothing-it's his OWN FAULT."
Of course, these same people are the ones who then want the homeless "off the street". Alright! Easily done! House them! But wait, no, we can't "steal" tax money to do that. So what do they propose be done? Euthanize them? Alright, then someone's got to pay to dispose of the body. Who's going to pay for that? We can't "steal" tax money for that either. Throw it out in the street, I guess. But how are we going to pay the guy to do that? Well, hell, I guess the homeless are just staying on the street after all. They'll die soon enough anyway, and we can just leave the body there to rot.
Damn, you're right, that sounds like the kind of society I want to live in! Sign me up!
The reason that socialism (if handled responsibly, and coupled with a DEMOCRATIC, not DICTATORIAL, system of government) works well is because it recognizes that the well-being of a society as a whole translates directly to the well-being of all its members. If discontent and poverty are common, crime will be widespread-given the choice between stealing a loaf of bread and starving, most will steal the bread. Given the choice between starving or killing you, some people will kill you. On the other hand, if poverty and discontent is rare, crime will drop way down. This benefits those who would have been -victims- of that crime, as well as those who would've otherwise been criminals. Jails don't prevent crime -nearly- so effectively as giving someone a lot to lose does.
As for your argument on private donations-that would be great, if everyone lived up to that responsibility and stepped up to donate. But some people like not to do their share. That's not at all fair to those who do, so unfortunately, we have to have a system in which those who have more, pay more.
Is that so terrible? Let me make you an offer, then. You have a choice between two winning lottery tickets. One is a winner for $20 million. If you choose it, you will be required to pay $10 million in taxes. The other one is for $20,000-but if you choose it, you get the money absolutely tax-free! So which do you pick here, the 50% tax rate or no taxes at all?
I wish I had the problems of these (m|b)illionaires, who complain that God forbid they have to pay more tax then their minimum-wage employees (for whom they are relying on the state they pay taxes to to provide services, medical care, and supplemental income, and making their fortune off of their backs). Their take-home pay is still millions upon millions of dollars, so I don't want to hear about how they're being so terribly oppressed. And anymore they barely -have- to pay any taxes, since Bush gave them the dividend exemption, and there have been "tax shelters" for the rich availa
Once again-that is accurate. -These- groups were not at all attempting to be disruptive, and your analogy is flawed. They were advertising the aim of their group/guild-as I imagine most groups/guilds do.
A more accurate analogy would be a large group of people who just got done with a gay pride march, and still wearing their "Gay and Proud!" and rainbow flag T-shirts, walk into a Burger King, get something to eat, and sit down to eat it. Why? These people are doing something well within expected behavior for those on World of Warcraft-setting up a guild. They are not doing something -out- of the ordinary (such as camping by a drink machine).
And if the other patrons of the Burger King begin to harass the gay rights group, who are just trying to eat, Burger King should throw out the harass-ers-, not the -recipients- of the harassment.
There's no difference. Saying "You may not marry a black person because you are white" is racial discrimination. Therefore, saying "You may not marry a man because you are a man" is sex discrimination.
Actually, providers of a public area (such as an open to the public server) ARE forbidden from discrimination based on sex, whether or not they are affiliated with the government.
Well, again, it comes down to their advertising. If they're advertising "unlimited" 6 Mbps service, I expect that to be a 6 Mbps pipe both ways, without any restrictions.
On the other hand, if they advertise LIMITED 6 Mbps down/384 Kbps up service, then yes, of course, I expect there to be limits, and as long as they're reasonably forthright about what those are, they're at least not committing false advertising.
I've actually had that particular fight with one ISP-after being notified by them I'd exceeded their bandwidth cap, I called up, posing as an interested potential customer, and asked if their service was unlimited. After they assured me that yes, they offer unlimited service, I told them that was untrue and if I heard another word about capping I'd be launching a class-action for false advertising.
Continued to go over the limit whenever I wanted (I was ready to switch anyway, if they dropped me after that), but they never said another word about it.
Oh not that I disbelieved you at all, if I tried to read everything here I'd never get anything done. (Wait...do I anyway?)
Slow down cowboy!
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment.
Chances are, you are behind a firewall or proxy, or are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, please try typing with your thumb up your ass.
If you're suggesting that her lawyers are knowingly lying, they can get in a -hell- of a lot of trouble for that. I presume, being that they're still practicing law, that they are probably aware of that, and have checked on this. I don't know her, how else do you propose I "check facts," other then to use a bit of basic logic?
How many times have they said "Well if you don't want to get sued, don't download music!" Explain that statement, in light of THIS!
I hope the court really slaps them one over this. It's clearly shown that they're not doing the most basic of fact-checking. (I mean, come on now, for godsakes, a dead woman, and now someone who's never used a computer at all?) Where did they pull the IP address out of -this- time? (Never mind, I don't want to know.) This is a massive waste of her time and that of the court, and I hope they get slapped with a good bit worse then attorney's fees. All their suits should be dismissed with prejudice after this garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
Folks, this is satire, not a troll! Where are my mod points when I need them...
And to paraphrase what's been so well said, so many times...the speech most in need of protection is precisely that speech which most members of society would find the most offensive.
When will we learn?
Though, I think your sig script would be worse for your health then any amount of coffee...
And some of us ARE against the control of all substances. The simplest way to kill off the dangerous home meth labs overnight is to allow (and regulate) its production by legitimate sources. Same for any drug. That will also simultaneously defund the gangs, mobs, and cartels that distribute this stuff-why buy the stuff illegally from your corner dealer when you can buy it legally at half the price and ten times the quality at the corner store?
Yes, it is clear. RIM made something extremely useful to millions and millions of people. NTP laid in wait to trip them up and mug them. Arguing whether what they had would have eventually turned out to be a real gun or a water pistol doesn't change their "bad guy" status here.
Or, for an XX year old, "Sign here or you're fired!" Really sounds great.
Oh it doesn't, it encourages it. Parent was referring to distributing a GPL program as binary without the source code, which it does prohibit.
Ah, the old GPL troll! Is that still floating around?
Personally, I don't believe there should be any restrictions on personal, not-for-profit copying, and no "license" should be able to change that. That should be true whether said license is standard copyright, the GPL, or the MS EULA.
On the other hand, -commercial-, for-profit copying, is what copyright is intended to, and should, regulate. In that case, you should be restricted-whether by the GPL, standard copyright, the MS EULA, or anything else.
For regular consumers, it should be you pay the tax and do as you like. Long as you're not profiting. If they would reform copyright to such a reasonable state, I would gladly grant that you too would have the right to distribute GPL stuff as binaries-so long as it's not for commercial purposes!
I know your comment was a joke, but actually in many countries there's a tax on blank media that goes to content providers. So...in many cases, blanks DO count.
Unfortunately, while what you say regarding bureaucratic inefficiencies has some merit, what that would result in is affluent areas (with their associated high tax base) having excellent schools, while poor areas would have hardly any, and those that did exist would be very poor quality. This would contribute to urban decay and the development of "ghetto" areas along racial and class lines. You already see this to an alarming degree.
If some type of local educational revenue-sharing model could be established, I believe the idea could work, but such things exist in very few areas.
I see, thanks for the information and clarification on that. While I suppose I can see the rationale, I'm glad we don't have any such rules here.
"Reporting restrictions?"
To be fair, I'm not very familiar with English law, but I thought free press was part of it!
And since he's so up on the "spirit of discovery" being a part of American culture, he surely wouldn't cut funds for schools...
No need for any -actual- event, even. If you can get away with shooting an unarmed man with no connection to terrorism, just on the grounds of terrorism in general, one would imagine you could push this through pretty easily with the same tactics.
Oh, I'm well aware of how that works. When I used to do manufacturing myself, we had a "house brand", as well as doing private-labeling for several better-known companies. Several of us were looking through one of the Grainger catalogs there one day, and we found that the "national brand" parts were being sold for almost double the price of our "house" brand! This for something that was built on the same line, by the same people, out of the same parts, and run through the same tests.
Seems an awful lot like fraud to me. Though I never tested it, I'd bet you if I called up the "national" company and asks who makes their stuff, they wouldn't tell you. I have no problem -when- the actual manufacturer is listed and known, but if you don't include a "Manufactured for X Corp. by Y Industries", you're not informing the consumer.
That's also what we call "fraud", or at the very least unethical. Why do people so often think that just because something exists in the "real world", it's automatically acceptable?
I'm not trying to flame you on that, I see/hear that quite a bit. "Well in the REAL WORLD...". In the real world, isn't there some type of ethical standard for corporations, or does that apply only to individuals?
You look at all of the famous genocidal monsters of the 20th century. All but one was a socialist.
Look at the happiest, most prosperous countries in the world. All but one is socialist.
Your logic doesn't hold. "It's been done wrong, therefore it's impossible to do right" is silly, as would my (farcical) assertion that "It's been done right, so it's impossible to do wrong."
Socialism and capitalism are -economic- methods. They are not methods of government-those are types like dictatorship and democracy. (And for your information, there have been -several- repressive fascist regimes, as well as several repressive socialist ones. The only thing they had in common was that they were all dictatorships!) And no, socialism is not theft. There is nothing wrong with saying "Those who are members of our society are expected to contribute in any way they can to make it better, including materially if possible." I see, however, that there -is- something wrong with saying "Go ahead and eat your filet mignon! It doesn't matter that the guy outside is starving. You EARNED it, and his starvation is all his own fault. The fact that you had wealthy parents and got a free ride through Stanford, and his parents were both crackheads who beat the crap out of him, means nothing-it's his OWN FAULT."
Of course, these same people are the ones who then want the homeless "off the street". Alright! Easily done! House them! But wait, no, we can't "steal" tax money to do that. So what do they propose be done? Euthanize them? Alright, then someone's got to pay to dispose of the body. Who's going to pay for that? We can't "steal" tax money for that either. Throw it out in the street, I guess. But how are we going to pay the guy to do that? Well, hell, I guess the homeless are just staying on the street after all. They'll die soon enough anyway, and we can just leave the body there to rot.
Damn, you're right, that sounds like the kind of society I want to live in! Sign me up!
The reason that socialism (if handled responsibly, and coupled with a DEMOCRATIC, not DICTATORIAL, system of government) works well is because it recognizes that the well-being of a society as a whole translates directly to the well-being of all its members. If discontent and poverty are common, crime will be widespread-given the choice between stealing a loaf of bread and starving, most will steal the bread. Given the choice between starving or killing you, some people will kill you. On the other hand, if poverty and discontent is rare, crime will drop way down. This benefits those who would have been -victims- of that crime, as well as those who would've otherwise been criminals. Jails don't prevent crime -nearly- so effectively as giving someone a lot to lose does.
As for your argument on private donations-that would be great, if everyone lived up to that responsibility and stepped up to donate. But some people like not to do their share. That's not at all fair to those who do, so unfortunately, we have to have a system in which those who have more, pay more.
Is that so terrible? Let me make you an offer, then. You have a choice between two winning lottery tickets. One is a winner for $20 million. If you choose it, you will be required to pay $10 million in taxes. The other one is for $20,000-but if you choose it, you get the money absolutely tax-free! So which do you pick here, the 50% tax rate or no taxes at all?
I wish I had the problems of these (m|b)illionaires, who complain that God forbid they have to pay more tax then their minimum-wage employees (for whom they are relying on the state they pay taxes to to provide services, medical care, and supplemental income, and making their fortune off of their backs). Their take-home pay is still millions upon millions of dollars, so I don't want to hear about how they're being so terribly oppressed. And anymore they barely -have- to pay any taxes, since Bush gave them the dividend exemption, and there have been "tax shelters" for the rich availa
Once again-that is accurate. -These- groups were not at all attempting to be disruptive, and your analogy is flawed. They were advertising the aim of their group/guild-as I imagine most groups/guilds do.
A more accurate analogy would be a large group of people who just got done with a gay pride march, and still wearing their "Gay and Proud!" and rainbow flag T-shirts, walk into a Burger King, get something to eat, and sit down to eat it. Why? These people are doing something well within expected behavior for those on World of Warcraft-setting up a guild. They are not doing something -out- of the ordinary (such as camping by a drink machine).
And if the other patrons of the Burger King begin to harass the gay rights group, who are just trying to eat, Burger King should throw out the harass-ers-, not the -recipients- of the harassment.
There's no difference. Saying "You may not marry a black person because you are white" is racial discrimination. Therefore, saying "You may not marry a man because you are a man" is sex discrimination.
Actually, providers of a public area (such as an open to the public server) ARE forbidden from discrimination based on sex, whether or not they are affiliated with the government.
Well, again, it comes down to their advertising. If they're advertising "unlimited" 6 Mbps service, I expect that to be a 6 Mbps pipe both ways, without any restrictions.
On the other hand, if they advertise LIMITED 6 Mbps down/384 Kbps up service, then yes, of course, I expect there to be limits, and as long as they're reasonably forthright about what those are, they're at least not committing false advertising.
I've actually had that particular fight with one ISP-after being notified by them I'd exceeded their bandwidth cap, I called up, posing as an interested potential customer, and asked if their service was unlimited. After they assured me that yes, they offer unlimited service, I told them that was untrue and if I heard another word about capping I'd be launching a class-action for false advertising.
Continued to go over the limit whenever I wanted (I was ready to switch anyway, if they dropped me after that), but they never said another word about it.
Oh not that I disbelieved you at all, if I tried to read everything here I'd never get anything done. (Wait...do I anyway?)
Slow down cowboy!
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment.
Chances are, you are behind a firewall or proxy, or are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, please try typing with your thumb up your ass.
If you're suggesting that her lawyers are knowingly lying, they can get in a -hell- of a lot of trouble for that. I presume, being that they're still practicing law, that they are probably aware of that, and have checked on this. I don't know her, how else do you propose I "check facts," other then to use a bit of basic logic?
How many times have they said "Well if you don't want to get sued, don't download music!" Explain that statement, in light of THIS!
I hope the court really slaps them one over this. It's clearly shown that they're not doing the most basic of fact-checking. (I mean, come on now, for godsakes, a dead woman, and now someone who's never used a computer at all?) Where did they pull the IP address out of -this- time? (Never mind, I don't want to know.) This is a massive waste of her time and that of the court, and I hope they get slapped with a good bit worse then attorney's fees. All their suits should be dismissed with prejudice after this garbage.
Actually, I'm rather old here, and have not ever seen it. Still quite a good one though.