why the hell do these mods keeping modding good posts down and bad posts up?? what are they smoking. anbody who posts an intelligent comment gets a 0!! what's up with that??
what's "right" and what's the constituition is different. it's not nice to swear at a cop but you have all the right to. In fact, there was a case where a guy said "fuck you" to a cop. The cop arrested him and the guys sued the cop for violating his first amendment rights. The guy won. Even though it's wasn't nice to swear at the cop, it was within his rights and protected by the first amendment. The second that we infringe on someone's freedom of speech and say it's ok, we set a precedent that the freedom of speech isn't absoulte. It's just a matter of time before it becomes illegal to insult or criticize the president. That's not a democracy or republic, that's a dictatorship. Btw, i only know of 3 actuall limitations to free speech: Copyrights and patents witch are evil (Jefferson called them a "neccesary evil"). libel and slander, and threats or or things that can cause iminent danger (can't threaten to kill someone or yell fire in a crowded theater). Personally, i think we should just get rid of copyrights and patents or at least make them 10 years without renewal.
Now spam. For every 1,000,000 people who get spammed, like 5 respond. If those 5 morons didn't respond, the spammers would go out of buisness. Personally, instead of making it illegal to spam (spammers won't care about the law) we should just fight fire with fire. massive DOS attacks against the servers sending out spam for example.
i was at my local library a few days ago and one guy was checking his yahoo mail. on yahoo's mail site, http://mail.yahoo.com, there is a picture of a woman. i personally don't like my children to look at that. should i tell him to stop? no! if you don't want to look at don't look. if you don't want your children to look at it, don't let them go to the library. but if you acutally believe that, you are a wacko. tel me please, what is wrong with seeing someone naked?? what. don't tell me that you have never seen somone naked before. why shouldn't your son see someone naked. it's not gonna hurt him. instead of worrying about something that is harmless, why don't you worry about something that can hurt him, like the food he eats. does your son drink milk? shame on you if he does. is your son a calf? i don't think so. letting your son drink milk (the biggest cause of food alergies btw) is much more harmfull to your son than letting him go to the library and see a naked woman once in a while.
the reason why people love porn so much is cause we are so sesitized to it. if it wasn't taboo, people wouldnt want to see it all the time. same thing with drugs. why do you think so many kids look do drugs? people are curios, want to see new things. if you son has been shielded from looking naked women for years, and he finaly sess a picture of one, he's gonna want to look at it. common sense! just cause you dont like that guy looking at porn in the library doesnt mean that he cant. dont look if you dont like it. i personally dont like looking at ugly-ass dell computers that have replcaed the great old dumb terminals at my local library. doesnt mean that they should hide them in a secluded corner so i dont see them.
Because moron, free speech covers not just sound waves coming from someone's mouth, but all forms of ideas and information. The consitution makes no distinction between a porn site and the New York Times. They are both forms of free speech protected under the First Amendment. What is so ingenius about the First Amendment is that it protects not only popular forms of speech, but unpopular speech too. If I don't agree with you, I have the RIGHT to give my ideas and opinoins. Just because there are a lot of right-wing people in this country doesnt mean that other's cant publish or say what they want. If you don't like porn, don't look it at. Simple as that. If you don't like the New York Times, don't read it. Simple as that. Just because YOU don't like porn doesn't mean that others who do can't enjoy it.
shut up you puritanical bum, you have a kid so you had sex!
oohhh, never relised that you had SEX eh??? That's a dirt word i know.
P.S.: Next time you post, make sure that your brain is turned on. OK? Oh nevermind, You were probably just too busy burning some witches to make a coherent post.
oh. You personally know the founder's intent? Man, you must be pretty old if you were alive back when the consitution was written.
>> radical interpretation of the Constitution
what???
have you even read the consitution?
HERE YOU GO:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
SEE that part where it talks about abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?
SEE THAT??
You obvioslly (forgive my spelling) didn't read my previous post. There is a difference between a physical object where the danger lies not in the information in it, but in it's physical properties (cigarettes in this example), and pornography or any other speech which just conveys information or free speech. First of all, there is no danger in pornography. It's naked people. Big deal. Second of all, it doesn't matter if its dangerous or not because the danger would be in the iformation in it. Information is protected under free speech: newspapers, internet, magazines, etc.. Physical objects are not: guns, cigarettes, nuclear weapons, etc.. That is the fundemental difference. Now, let's say that the goverment decided to make a law against looking at playboy because the paper paper they used in the magazine had extremly high levels of arsenic and was extremly dangerous, then that would be ok. But if the goverment made it illegal becuase of the images of naked women in it, that would NOT BE OK.
But that is where I disagree. First of all, tobaco or cigerattes are substanse, not information or a form of free speech. Just like nuclear bombs and weapons-grade plutonium aren't free speech. Pornography is. That is the fudementall difference. The Constitution only says that the goverment shall not abridge free speech. It doesn't make any difference who recieves the speech.
the problem is that not only do non-porn sites get blocked, but porn sites get blocked. Pornography is also free speech. People don't seem to get that. Protecting children from porn (if you can even call it protecting) is soly the responsibility of the parents.
PLEASE LISTEN AND I WILL TRY TO PENETRATE YOU THINK SKULL:
YOUR argument is faulty. Yes, the developers are users, but that is not why Apple is going after them. They are going after them because they are giving the software to people to use. NOW. Weather or not the PlayFair developers make their project availble through sf.net, sarovar, or another site is TOTALLY seperate from them or someone else violating the Apple contract.
>"The developers ARE users."
Mabey they are. Makes no difference. Hosting the PlayFair code is different than breaking the apple contract.
Anyways, if Apple has "nothing" against sf.net or sarvoar, how come they send them C&D orders? Do you think if sf.net or sarovar refused to comply with Apple, that apple what not do anything and just try to resolve it with the actually PlayFair developers? NO. They would bring lawsuit against SF.net or Saravor.
There are TWO seperate issues here. One is breaking the iTunes music store contract by USING PlayFair. The other is creating and hosting a free software projects.
>If you don't have a problem with the contract, then you would see why the PlayFair project has to abide by Apple's rules.
PlayFair IS abiding by Apple's ruls because Apple has no rules that prohibit people from creating free software projects. That's like Microsoft making a rule that says all people can't eat potato chips. Makes no sense? Darn right. Apple's contract says that the users cannot break the DRM. OK.
Are the PlayFair devs breaking the apple contract by creating PlayFair? NO (They may be breaking the DRM when they actually use it, but that is a seperate matter)
Are SourceForge or Saravor breaking the apple contract. NO (First of all, sf and sarvoar have no contract with apple so their is none to break. Second, even if they did, there is nothing in the Apple contract that says you can't host a free softare project.)
The bottome line is that the contract is between two parties. Apple and the itunes music store User. Not Apple and SF.net. Not Apple and Sarovar. AND, not APPLE and PlayFair.
Slashdot Mirror
come on. get real. i bet you give riaa execs blowjobs.
yay! we agree i gues
why the hell do these mods keeping modding good posts down and bad posts up?? what are they smoking. anbody who posts an intelligent comment gets a 0!! what's up with that??
what's "right" and what's the constituition is different. it's not nice to swear at a cop but you have all the right to. In fact, there was a case where a guy said "fuck you" to a cop. The cop arrested him and the guys sued the cop for violating his first amendment rights. The guy won. Even though it's wasn't nice to swear at the cop, it was within his rights and protected by the first amendment. The second that we infringe on someone's freedom of speech and say it's ok, we set a precedent that the freedom of speech isn't absoulte. It's just a matter of time before it becomes illegal to insult or criticize the president. That's not a democracy or republic, that's a dictatorship. Btw, i only know of 3 actuall limitations to free speech: Copyrights and patents witch are evil (Jefferson called them a "neccesary evil"). libel and slander, and threats or or things that can cause iminent danger (can't threaten to kill someone or yell fire in a crowded theater). Personally, i think we should just get rid of copyrights and patents or at least make them 10 years without renewal.
Now spam. For every 1,000,000 people who get spammed, like 5 respond. If those 5 morons didn't respond, the spammers would go out of buisness. Personally, instead of making it illegal to spam (spammers won't care about the law) we should just fight fire with fire. massive DOS attacks against the servers sending out spam for example.
i hate spam but just remember that it is a form of free speech.
what kind of "libertarian" are you moron?
Well, I'm sure that if there is any "truama," he'll get over it soon.
Daddy, why did you stick your peepee into mommy?
Typical right-wing, brain-dead, bible-thumping, nazi-loving, witch-burning, gun-toting conservitive.
Why the hell didn't the previous post only get modded 2? It should be a 5. Great. we have brain-dead mods it seems.
see, i can undestand the "protecting" of your kid from violence. but porn?? let me ask you:
What is so bad with your son seeing a naked human being. He is a human being himself. What is the problem. How is it going to "harm" him?
i was at my local library a few days ago and one guy was checking his yahoo mail. on yahoo's mail site, http://mail.yahoo.com, there is a picture of a woman. i personally don't like my children to look at that. should i tell him to stop? no! if you don't want to look at don't look. if you don't want your children to look at it, don't let them go to the library. but if you acutally believe that, you are a wacko. tel me please, what is wrong with seeing someone naked?? what. don't tell me that you have never seen somone naked before. why shouldn't your son see someone naked. it's not gonna hurt him. instead of worrying about something that is harmless, why don't you worry about something that can hurt him, like the food he eats. does your son drink milk? shame on you if he does. is your son a calf? i don't think so. letting your son drink milk (the biggest cause of food alergies btw) is much more harmfull to your son than letting him go to the library and see a naked woman once in a while.
the reason why people love porn so much is cause we are so sesitized to it. if it wasn't taboo, people wouldnt want to see it all the time. same thing with drugs. why do you think so many kids look do drugs? people are curios, want to see new things. if you son has been shielded from looking naked women for years, and he finaly sess a picture of one, he's gonna want to look at it. common sense! just cause you dont like that guy looking at porn in the library doesnt mean that he cant. dont look if you dont like it. i personally dont like looking at ugly-ass dell computers that have replcaed the great old dumb terminals at my local library. doesnt mean that they should hide them in a secluded corner so i dont see them.
Because moron, free speech covers not just sound waves coming from someone's mouth, but all forms of ideas and information. The consitution makes no distinction between a porn site and the New York Times. They are both forms of free speech protected under the First Amendment. What is so ingenius about the First Amendment is that it protects not only popular forms of speech, but unpopular speech too. If I don't agree with you, I have the RIGHT to give my ideas and opinoins. Just because there are a lot of right-wing people in this country doesnt mean that other's cant publish or say what they want. If you don't like porn, don't look it at. Simple as that. If you don't like the New York Times, don't read it. Simple as that. Just because YOU don't like porn doesn't mean that others who do can't enjoy it.
yah! its called the Bill of Rights. Maybe you should go check it out sometime. Very interesting.
unethical perverts???
shut up you puritanical bum, you have a kid so you had sex!
oohhh, never relised that you had SEX eh??? That's a dirt word i know.
P.S.: Next time you post, make sure that your brain is turned on. OK? Oh nevermind, You were probably just too busy burning some witches to make a coherent post.
oh. You personally know the founder's intent? Man, you must be pretty old if you were alive back when the consitution was written. >> radical interpretation of the Constitution what??? have you even read the consitution? HERE YOU GO: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. SEE that part where it talks about abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press? SEE THAT??
You obvioslly (forgive my spelling) didn't read my previous post. There is a difference between a physical object where the danger lies not in the information in it, but in it's physical properties (cigarettes in this example), and pornography or any other speech which just conveys information or free speech. First of all, there is no danger in pornography. It's naked people. Big deal. Second of all, it doesn't matter if its dangerous or not because the danger would be in the iformation in it. Information is protected under free speech: newspapers, internet, magazines, etc.. Physical objects are not: guns, cigarettes, nuclear weapons, etc.. That is the fundemental difference. Now, let's say that the goverment decided to make a law against looking at playboy because the paper paper they used in the magazine had extremly high levels of arsenic and was extremly dangerous, then that would be ok. But if the goverment made it illegal becuase of the images of naked women in it, that would NOT BE OK.
it's the stupid puritanical chrisitans. that's the problem.
finally somone gets my point!
But that is where I disagree. First of all, tobaco or cigerattes are substanse, not information or a form of free speech. Just like nuclear bombs and weapons-grade plutonium aren't free speech. Pornography is. That is the fudementall difference. The Constitution only says that the goverment shall not abridge free speech. It doesn't make any difference who recieves the speech.
the problem is that not only do non-porn sites get blocked, but porn sites get blocked. Pornography is also free speech. People don't seem to get that. Protecting children from porn (if you can even call it protecting) is soly the responsibility of the parents.
ive thought of this before but never tried it. its the best of both worlds, speed of ram and the advantages of swap
I would love to find one to disasemble my 700 mhz g3 ibook.
i can see why java would be better than c++ but come on! it still sucks. what langiage should they use?
Ruby
yes. that or that it is hurting ipod sales.
PLEASE LISTEN AND I WILL TRY TO PENETRATE YOU THINK SKULL: YOUR argument is faulty. Yes, the developers are users, but that is not why Apple is going after them. They are going after them because they are giving the software to people to use. NOW. Weather or not the PlayFair developers make their project availble through sf.net, sarovar, or another site is TOTALLY seperate from them or someone else violating the Apple contract.
>"The developers ARE users."
Mabey they are. Makes no difference. Hosting the PlayFair code is different than breaking the apple contract. Anyways, if Apple has "nothing" against sf.net or sarvoar, how come they send them C&D orders? Do you think if sf.net or sarovar refused to comply with Apple, that apple what not do anything and just try to resolve it with the actually PlayFair developers? NO. They would bring lawsuit against SF.net or Saravor.
There are TWO seperate issues here. One is breaking the iTunes music store contract by USING PlayFair. The other is creating and hosting a free software projects.
>If you don't have a problem with the contract, then you would see why the PlayFair project has to abide by Apple's rules.
PlayFair IS abiding by Apple's ruls because Apple has no rules that prohibit people from creating free software projects. That's like Microsoft making a rule that says all people can't eat potato chips. Makes no sense? Darn right. Apple's contract says that the users cannot break the DRM. OK.
Are the PlayFair devs breaking the apple contract by creating PlayFair? NO (They may be breaking the DRM when they actually use it, but that is a seperate matter)
Are SourceForge or Saravor breaking the apple contract. NO (First of all, sf and sarvoar have no contract with apple so their is none to break. Second, even if they did, there is nothing in the Apple contract that says you can't host a free softare project.)
The bottome line is that the contract is between two parties. Apple and the itunes music store User. Not Apple and SF.net. Not Apple and Sarovar. AND, not APPLE and PlayFair.