Open source projects assimilate pieces of other open source projects all of the time. With the GPL, resistence really is futile. In the fairly grotesque world of analogies, it would seem that borgware is more appropriate to describe F/OSS than Microsoft. The conotation of evil is there, but one has to think Microsoft is already evil for the comparison to ring true.
I guess I would just rather see a better price to performance ratio than energy efficiency to performance ratio. If I am going to spend $500 on a CPU, you can bet it's going to be something a little beefier than a P4-M. That aside, a dual P3 1.4GHz system with an OS that is able to scale well with multiple processors (FreeBSD 5 comes to mind) is probably both cheaper, more energy efficient, and quite likely more powerful (depending on what is being done on it).
It has plenty to do with the post I was answering to. Namely, it tries to point out that granting someone a right to do something neccessarily leads to a right to do that something anonymously, since otherwise the right is just empty words.
Absolutely not. We have no right to anonymity when bearing arms, driving an automobile, or entering many public buildings. These are all rights we have been granted.
Whether anyone has been jailed for their choice of reading materials or not I don't know, and neither do you, for I doubt the US government would make noise about it. However, if your government is insisting on getting this information, then presumably they're going to use it for something; why else would they want it ?
So in other words, because it can not be proved that it did not happen, it must have happened? And, of course they do things with the information. It isn't recorded for prosperity. Nonetheless, their rationale that the information will/would be used in further investigation of someone already under suspicion is quite plausible and reasonable.
If you really believe in this secret conspiracy theory, do you really think it would be made public via a congressional bill? If I wanted to pick on the dissidents, I don't think I would ask Congress for permission.
Finally, I must point out that there is more possible negative consequences than just prison sentences; for example, suppose the corporate overlords want to know if someone they're considering employing has read any book this particular overlord happens to disagree with ?
Protecting the employment of a Communist sell-out who wants to work for the "corporate overlords" is far from a practical consideration. Keep in mind that in most states, any employer can fire any employee for almost any reason, excluding criteria such as age, sex, and race. If an employer wants to fire someone for their political views, most states have no laws prohibiting them.
1. The Government is on a secret crusade against dissidents and aims to harass anyone found reading certain books. They also have a large, well-trained, and secret force analysing our political/social tendencies.
2. They want to make it easier for law enforcement to gather evidence against people already under investigation.
I have a much easier time believing #2 than #1. Then again, if I adjust my tin foil hat properly that could change.
No one has ever been charged, indicted, or convicted for reading books. The PATRIOT Act does not change this. You will not be prosecuted for your purchase from Amazon, and odds are next to non-existent that anyone would care if you were reading such a book at a library.
The government is not so concerned with the trivial habits of its citizens that it will haul someone in for questioning because they were reading a book.
Get off your high horse. Those amendments relate to fundamental human rights, like eating, breathing and having sex. Anonymity when conducting a transaction with a public entity is far from such a right by anyone sane person's definition.
There is a distinct difference between the lack of a right to anonymity when conducting transactions with a public entity and the right to choose how one dresses.
This isn't the 60's anymore. Don't you get that? We are not living in a time where dissidence is punished. We are living in a time where dissidence is very popular and very public.
In the same place it says privacy, murder, prostitution, and gambling are not rights. If a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, guess what? It is not a constitutional right. Maybe I am too much of a moron and not neosociolibertarianist enough to understand the law properly.
What does that have to do with the PATRIOT Act? There are no laws saying libraries can not provide questionable literature or that individuals can not read it. The catch is if they check out books on bomb-making and Islam, they should not have the expectation of anonymity.
No one says states' rights are absolute. If a state wants to reenact slavery, should that right be respected? I hardly call exercising discretion arbitrary. I also have a hard time believing that campaign contributors are influencing Republicans in Congress to get the names of people who demonstrate certain reading habits.
I don't think you understand my point. This was a court ruling. These rulings are supposed to be based only on law, not on what is good or bad. The Constitution gives the government the right to seize property. Compensation is determined in as objective a way as possible, generally taking into account appraisals (not assessments), and frequently quite generous.
Christ. Does anyone on/. understand that justice is blind? Courts are not supposed to be ruling on what is good or bad. They are supposed to be ruling on the law.
Do you consider $1 billion to be just compensation for a shack in the middle of a desert? Although that phrase is somewhat subjective, I have never heard one argue that just compensation meant one would receive whatever they want. I guess I am just not sociolibertarianist enough to get it...
Whether we like it or not, the government is permitted to seize property. Since our Constitution does not prohibit seizure of private property, why should the court have ruled it is unconstitutional to do so? If our Constitution was designed to protect against this, why does it expressly permit it?
Slashdot Mirror
Open source projects assimilate pieces of other open source projects all of the time. With the GPL, resistence really is futile. In the fairly grotesque world of analogies, it would seem that borgware is more appropriate to describe F/OSS than Microsoft. The conotation of evil is there, but one has to think Microsoft is already evil for the comparison to ring true.
Then he can sit around with it in Starbucks, Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc sipping some god-awful concoction with soy milk and be even more of a man!
I guess I would just rather see a better price to performance ratio than energy efficiency to performance ratio. If I am going to spend $500 on a CPU, you can bet it's going to be something a little beefier than a P4-M. That aside, a dual P3 1.4GHz system with an OS that is able to scale well with multiple processors (FreeBSD 5 comes to mind) is probably both cheaper, more energy efficient, and quite likely more powerful (depending on what is being done on it).
Hence the question.
Why not just use a late model P3 then?
Absolutely not. We have no right to anonymity when bearing arms, driving an automobile, or entering many public buildings. These are all rights we have been granted.
So in other words, because it can not be proved that it did not happen, it must have happened? And, of course they do things with the information. It isn't recorded for prosperity. Nonetheless, their rationale that the information will/would be used in further investigation of someone already under suspicion is quite plausible and reasonable.
If you really believe in this secret conspiracy theory, do you really think it would be made public via a congressional bill? If I wanted to pick on the dissidents, I don't think I would ask Congress for permission.
Protecting the employment of a Communist sell-out who wants to work for the "corporate overlords" is far from a practical consideration. Keep in mind that in most states, any employer can fire any employee for almost any reason, excluding criteria such as age, sex, and race. If an employer wants to fire someone for their political views, most states have no laws prohibiting them.
Ok, let's look at the possible two scenarios:
1. The Government is on a secret crusade against dissidents and aims to harass anyone found reading certain books. They also have a large, well-trained, and secret force analysing our political/social tendencies.
2. They want to make it easier for law enforcement to gather evidence against people already under investigation.
I have a much easier time believing #2 than #1. Then again, if I adjust my tin foil hat properly that could change.
No one has ever been charged, indicted, or convicted for reading books. The PATRIOT Act does not change this. You will not be prosecuted for your purchase from Amazon, and odds are next to non-existent that anyone would care if you were reading such a book at a library.
The government is not so concerned with the trivial habits of its citizens that it will haul someone in for questioning because they were reading a book.
Get off your high horse. Those amendments relate to fundamental human rights, like eating, breathing and having sex. Anonymity when conducting a transaction with a public entity is far from such a right by anyone sane person's definition.
There is a distinct difference between the lack of a right to anonymity when conducting transactions with a public entity and the right to choose how one dresses.
This isn't the 60's anymore. Don't you get that? We are not living in a time where dissidence is punished. We are living in a time where dissidence is very popular and very public.
What does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act? Who has been jailed for their choice of reading materials?
In the same place it says privacy, murder, prostitution, and gambling are not rights. If a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, guess what? It is not a constitutional right. Maybe I am too much of a moron and not neosociolibertarianist enough to understand the law properly.
That's the point. States' rights are at the discretion of the Federal government.
Where is the damage being done by not having anonymity? Political dissidents are not being harassed. People are still free to read whatever they want.
Reading such books is constitutionally guaranteed. Anonymity is not.
What does that have to do with the PATRIOT Act? There are no laws saying libraries can not provide questionable literature or that individuals can not read it. The catch is if they check out books on bomb-making and Islam, they should not have the expectation of anonymity.
No one says states' rights are absolute. If a state wants to reenact slavery, should that right be respected? I hardly call exercising discretion arbitrary. I also have a hard time believing that campaign contributors are influencing Republicans in Congress to get the names of people who demonstrate certain reading habits.
Don't you know how fundamental a right it is check out communist literature anonymously from public libraries? Our right to breathe will be next!
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy strikes again!
Aside from flaimbait and trolls, 99% of the comments on /. are pretty damn predictable.
I don't think you understand my point. This was a court ruling. These rulings are supposed to be based only on law, not on what is good or bad. The Constitution gives the government the right to seize property. Compensation is determined in as objective a way as possible, generally taking into account appraisals (not assessments), and frequently quite generous.
Christ. Does anyone on /. understand that justice is blind? Courts are not supposed to be ruling on what is good or bad. They are supposed to be ruling on the law.
Do you consider $1 billion to be just compensation for a shack in the middle of a desert? Although that phrase is somewhat subjective, I have never heard one argue that just compensation meant one would receive whatever they want. I guess I am just not sociolibertarianist enough to get it...
Whether we like it or not, the government is permitted to seize property. Since our Constitution does not prohibit seizure of private property, why should the court have ruled it is unconstitutional to do so? If our Constitution was designed to protect against this, why does it expressly permit it?
What about those who care about states' rights?