That's a very crucial point though -- it is the ISP censoring, not the government. Remember all of the movie theaters refusing to show Farenheit 9/11? Think about all of the voluntary censhorship on non-FCC regulated cable TV chanels. Things like this are what make a lack of government censorship work. The first amendment is not about the government forcing the channels open for everyone's message to reach everyone else, it is about the government taking a platform of non-involvement.
The first amendment gives you the right to say whatever you want, not everyone else the responsibility to hear it or make sure it is heard.
Curb your [sarcasm]. I was not responding to you. I was responding to an AC. Although in a post that was a response to you, I thought I was mildly informative. Anyway, it was just a [sarcastic] joke.
Yes, Section 1 of the Charter does describe the circumstances under which the government may pass a law contravening the rights outlined in it, but I would hardly say that it is very easy to circumvent.
That text is pretty awful. Passages like that are what get laws declared unconstitutional in the US. Hate speech certainly does not seem to impede a free and democratic society...
Yes, Canada does have laws against hate speech. The last time I checked, expressing skepticism about the holocaust itself was not hate speech.
Although I don't doubt it has changed, it certainly was a crime at one point. My point stands in response to the OP, that Canada is not the haven of civil liberties it is frequently viewed as.
Canada basically doesn't have a Bill of Rights like the US. There is a similar constitutional amendment (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but its language makes it very easy to circumvent (ie, it can be violated for what is seen as a good reason). Beyond that, let's keep in mind there is no right to privacy in the US constitution beyond the fourth amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
Keep in mind that Canada, like many other countries, has laws forbidding hate speech. I believe it is still illegal to voice skepticism about the holocaust in Canada.
Re:PS3? No thanks, Sony; you screwed the pooch
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 1
Not really. Sony could make one just as functional for any other OS. If users run the thing, it is hard to blame MS.
Apparently you've been here for a long enough time to forget how many people out there would choose Windows over OS X, GNOME, KDE, Black Box, Enlightenment, etc.
Microsoft's products seem to be better quality (I can't remember the last time XP crashed on me), it is certainly cheaper than it used to be (I can remember shelling out more for MS-DOS than Windows XP Home can be bought for), and most people are perfectly happy to use it.
They have not made Office compatible with ODF. That is the crux of the issue. The answer to this is not for the state to cut off its nose to spite its face.
It would be nice to see one shred of evidence to support that claim other than their opposition to OpenDocument.
As the last article on this noted, there are a fair number of blind and deaf state workers who could not get by using OpenOffice. Not to mention that a fiscally conservative approach would be to use MS Office on older hardware due to its lower processor and memory consumption compared to OOo. Don't forget the added initial cost of supporting a totally new office suite at a time when the state has enough budget problems.
This seems like a high price to pay to stick it to MS.
It's kind of ugly at first, but not as bad the more I look at it. I think its the font used that bothers me, not so much the graphic. The red background also seems like a little bit too much.
I guess I am just a relic with a normal CD player. Though I want to say that the last Windows computer I setup had autoplay disabled. I'm not sure if it was done after the initial OS install or a Windows update.
Don't be discouraged by being modded down by the pseudo scientists of slashdot. Few people here will acknowledge there is any merit at all to the ID argument and will accuse you of being a stupid Christian fanatic for noting the simple fact that the theory of evolution is not fact.
The reason apps are not ported from Windows and OS X to Linux is that it is a poor use of resources. Why port apps to an OS that such a small fraction of users use? LSB will not solve that problem.
Linux needs to gain popularity from the ground up, not the top down. Especially given the nature of F/OSS and community driven development, the Linux community should not be looking to big software companies for handouts. How much would Adobe have to sell Linux Photoshop for in order to make money off of it?
Yes, I know there are arguments that companies should be trying to steer their users toward Linux, but without an apparent bottom-line payoff, this will be the exception, not the rule.
IBC Root Beer comes to mind. Personally, if I just saw a brown bottle with a "Duff" label on it and had never seen the Simpsons, I could easily be convinced it was a soft drink.
Easy: Duff can be a soft-drink (remember when those came in brown-tinted glass bottles?), refer to the hot dogs as Egyptian sausages, and refer to the donuts as the some sort of cookie.
I'm sure that episodes dealing heavily with Christianity will not be shown.
It's better than getting my business news from Slashdot. Not to mention it is the closest thing to a good convservative newspaper out there, or at least the editorials don't make me throw up in my mouth quite as much as the New York Times'.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very crucial point though -- it is the ISP censoring, not the government. Remember all of the movie theaters refusing to show Farenheit 9/11? Think about all of the voluntary censhorship on non-FCC regulated cable TV chanels. Things like this are what make a lack of government censorship work. The first amendment is not about the government forcing the channels open for everyone's message to reach everyone else, it is about the government taking a platform of non-involvement.
The first amendment gives you the right to say whatever you want, not everyone else the responsibility to hear it or make sure it is heard.
Curb your [sarcasm]. I was not responding to you. I was responding to an AC. Although in a post that was a response to you, I thought I was mildly informative. Anyway, it was just a [sarcastic] joke.
Yes, Section 1 of the Charter does describe the circumstances under which the government may pass a law contravening the rights outlined in it, but I would hardly say that it is very easy to circumvent.
That text is pretty awful. Passages like that are what get laws declared unconstitutional in the US. Hate speech certainly does not seem to impede a free and democratic society...
Yes, Canada does have laws against hate speech. The last time I checked, expressing skepticism about the holocaust itself was not hate speech.
Although I don't doubt it has changed, it certainly was a crime at one point. My point stands in response to the OP, that Canada is not the haven of civil liberties it is frequently viewed as.
It's in the first amendment of the Declaration of Independence. Duh.
Canada basically doesn't have a Bill of Rights like the US. There is a similar constitutional amendment (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but its language makes it very easy to circumvent (ie, it can be violated for what is seen as a good reason). Beyond that, let's keep in mind there is no right to privacy in the US constitution beyond the fourth amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
Keep in mind that Canada, like many other countries, has laws forbidding hate speech. I believe it is still illegal to voice skepticism about the holocaust in Canada.
Not really. Sony could make one just as functional for any other OS. If users run the thing, it is hard to blame MS.
Alright... So Windows is crack and Windows users are just stupid crackheads?
Apparently you've been here for a long enough time to forget how many people out there would choose Windows over OS X, GNOME, KDE, Black Box, Enlightenment, etc.
Microsoft's products seem to be better quality (I can't remember the last time XP crashed on me), it is certainly cheaper than it used to be (I can remember shelling out more for MS-DOS than Windows XP Home can be bought for), and most people are perfectly happy to use it.
I think you mean Linspire Defender.
I thought the web site was going to reflect the new logo...
Last time I checked, OOo, AbiWord, and WordPerfect could work w/ MS Office files.
They have not made Office compatible with ODF. That is the crux of the issue. The answer to this is not for the state to cut off its nose to spite its face.
It would be nice to see one shred of evidence to support that claim other than their opposition to OpenDocument.
As the last article on this noted, there are a fair number of blind and deaf state workers who could not get by using OpenOffice. Not to mention that a fiscally conservative approach would be to use MS Office on older hardware due to its lower processor and memory consumption compared to OOo. Don't forget the added initial cost of supporting a totally new office suite at a time when the state has enough budget problems.
This seems like a high price to pay to stick it to MS.
It's kind of ugly at first, but not as bad the more I look at it. I think its the font used that bothers me, not so much the graphic. The red background also seems like a little bit too much.
I guess I am just a relic with a normal CD player. Though I want to say that the last Windows computer I setup had autoplay disabled. I'm not sure if it was done after the initial OS install or a Windows update.
Do people actually install the crap that comes with audio CDs?
Don't be discouraged by being modded down by the pseudo scientists of slashdot. Few people here will acknowledge there is any merit at all to the ID argument and will accuse you of being a stupid Christian fanatic for noting the simple fact that the theory of evolution is not fact.
And that is what needs to happen before there can be an expectation of companies sinking millions into desktop Linux.
I thought PHP was already more popular. Granted PHP-Nuke, etc aren't exactly banking apps.
The reason apps are not ported from Windows and OS X to Linux is that it is a poor use of resources. Why port apps to an OS that such a small fraction of users use? LSB will not solve that problem.
Linux needs to gain popularity from the ground up, not the top down. Especially given the nature of F/OSS and community driven development, the Linux community should not be looking to big software companies for handouts. How much would Adobe have to sell Linux Photoshop for in order to make money off of it?
Yes, I know there are arguments that companies should be trying to steer their users toward Linux, but without an apparent bottom-line payoff, this will be the exception, not the rule.
IBC Root Beer comes to mind. Personally, if I just saw a brown bottle with a "Duff" label on it and had never seen the Simpsons, I could easily be convinced it was a soft drink.
Easy: Duff can be a soft-drink (remember when those came in brown-tinted glass bottles?), refer to the hot dogs as Egyptian sausages, and refer to the donuts as the some sort of cookie.
I'm sure that episodes dealing heavily with Christianity will not be shown.
You do realize you can be jailed in Canada for vocalize things such as holocaust skepticism?
It's better than getting my business news from Slashdot. Not to mention it is the closest thing to a good convservative newspaper out there, or at least the editorials don't make me throw up in my mouth quite as much as the New York Times'.
When I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and became inundated with investment-related spam almost immediately. I suppose I should learn to RTFPP.