I built it from a nightly source tarball a week back and it ran well when I transported my distribution to another Redhat 6 box and unpacked it. I did not, however, manage to get a copy of the "simplebrowser" executable built. Anyone know how to make sure it gets made?
"The American...derived his right of cheating the Revenue, and of perjuring himself, from the example of his fathers and the rights of nature [and would continue to] complain and smuggle, and smuggle and complain, till all Restraints are removed, and till he can both buy and sell, whenever, and wheresoever, he pleases. Anything short of this, is still a Greivance, a Badge of Slavery."
Well, you know what they say. "Vote early, vote often."
Wave of the future: corner kiosks for up to the minute updates on legislation, so finally every individual can keep constant tabs on what laws they may or may not be breaking.
Fabrice Bellard wrote LZEXE, which transparently compressed executables under DOS, as well as the 486 mpg123 patch -- yes, MP3 playback on a 486, which I used on a 33Mhz box. Thanks to both of them, we all squeeze more efficiency out of hardware.
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States, or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceedings for redress."
Title 42 USC )1983
"To maintain an action under 42 USC 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully, or in a furtherance of a conspiracy....it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation...was the natural consequences of defendants acting under color of law..." Ethridge v. Rhodos, DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83 (1967), Whirl v. Kern CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)]
"...an...officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government." Brookfield Co. v Stuart, (1964) 234 F. Supp 94, 99 (U.S.D.C., Wash.D.C.)
"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity..." (70 AmJur2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability.)
What's the URL for this one? I downloaded the "Live in Mexico City" concert in.asf format a while back. First time I tried to play it, Media Player launched Internet Explorer and went to a web page that asked me for an email address -- but every time since then, it plays like any other file. I really ought to get around to splitting it up into mp3's:)
The Livid-dev mailing list recently spun off a second mailing list to discuss the creation of an "Open DIgital Video" standard or the like. Check the usual websites for more information.
We could go on all night about whether the media tends to be more left than right, more capitalist than socialist, etc. I tend toward seeing the predominant bias as being collectivist at the expense of individuals, which is a more all-encompassing paradigm.
And I don't agree 100% with Proudhon any more than I agree 100% with Ayn Rand. As Ken Kesey said, "Take what you can use, and let the rest go by."
Warning: The monks in alt.sysadmin.recovery might LART me for giving out useful information, so I'll approach it tangentially: You Have Been Trolled. Hope This Helps. Have A Nice Day.
Being replied to with a troll of this quality is more gratifying than any amount of positive moderation. Thanks, AC. You put a genuine smile on my face. Now if only you'd worked in Natalie Portman, grits and a Beowolf cluster...
Actually, Proudhon and I are on more than a passing acquaintance:
"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measureed, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
Regarding the anticapitalist bent, I was specifically referring to the Linux Journal article, not the media in general. And no, freedom is not (solely) about making money -- it's about being free. Freedom is not a means to an end, but an end -- and a good -- in and of itself.
You wrote: "I don't understand what you mean here. To me, "unlawful" and "illegal" mean more or less the same thing. Could you explain what you mean by these terms?"
Certainly. Legal is the mere form of the law; you can dot all your i's and cross all your t's while merrily sending Jews to the gas chambers (to use a Godwinesque metaphor) and still be obeying all the statutes, legislation, orders, etc. Lawful, on the other hand, is concerned with the substance of law, not the mere form/formalities. And this is not my definition; these are legal definitions as recognized in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (the AK-47 of the pro se).
What is lawful cannot be made unlawful. Making something "illegal" means making it malum prohibitum, or "evil because it is prohibited" (i.e., "it's wrong because it's against the law"). Unlawful actions are those which are malum in se, or "evil in and of itself" -- i.e., those actions which are inherently wrong (fraud, theft, assault, murder).
Getting back on track a bit: You don't have any rights that you can't claim, and if you don't object timely, the right is assumed to be waived. The Supreme Court has said -- and keep this in mind at all times when you are the defendant -- regarding any and all rights you can claim:
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538.
I agree with the other proactive folks. The best defense is a good offense; and the more the merrier. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
(I apologize for focusing solely on the end-user viewpoint. Chris Johnson has had much insightful stuff to say here lately about the content creator's end of things, and how all this crap that supposedly protects artists screws them just as much as it does the rest of us, if not more.)
Too many people confuse fascism, oligopoly, mercantilism and fraud with actual fair trade. (A truly free market requires informed consumers, not passive drones; but we cannot force everyone to be equally intelligent, nor expect everyone to be equally desirous to live freely.)
Groups can never have more rights than the individuals which comprise them -- the individual is the smallest minority. The privileges of a private guild conflict with the inalienable rights of individuals? Too bad; the latter trumps the former.
A lot of so-called "capitalists" have swallowed the CCA/MPAA lies hook, line and sinker. They think it's about piracy. It's not. What IS it about? A lot of things which can't be easily condensed, as the last few weeks of discussion here have shown. Meanwhile, lots of hackers see "capitalism" as the problem, when it's fascism, mercantilism, oligopoly and the like that they're really upset about -- they just don't realize it.
You already know the State claims you don't even own yourself? Now private guilds are ready to violate your rights just as thoroughly, and abuse the legal power of the State by using sovereign national's police forces as their enforcement arm. Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "property" as
"the sole and despotic dominion which one man exercises over the external things of the world to the total exclusion of every other individual in the universe."
When you lawfully purchase a DVD, do you really own it? Do you only have the right to expose your eyeballs to its images and ears to its sounds? How far may ownership be abrogated -- and by what process is this happening?
In the good old days, you were lucky: If you opened the case, all you did was void the warranty. Now, you can be declared a criminal. This harkens back to medieval days, when everyone had "special knowledge" and people were routinely exiled from the guild or killed by its members for revealing the secrets of smithing, healing, or even reading and writing.
But lawful behavior (fair use, reverse engineering and the like) can never be made unlawful, by any amount of legislation. It can only be declared illegal.
Of course it's easy to see how capitalism gets its bad name, given the retarded poster children that get all the press. Steve Gilliard once said, "The reason that some of us are more worried about government power than corporate power is that Coca Cola rarely strafes the villages of Pepsi drinkers." Unfortunately, a lot of groups out there seem to be eagerly competing with governments everywhere to see who can violate the rights of the individual more efficiently and thoroughly. Disney and other companies get together to extend copyrights, while every two-bit jackass who throws together a CGI script slaps a patent on it and sues anyone running a web-based store...
The future, where your only freedom is the freedom to make money (but not too much); where tools like compilers and debuggers are restricted to an elite, privileged and licensed class; where it doesn't matter whether it's government or a corporation giving you the shaft, because they're fascistically intertwined so thoroughly you can't tell one from the other.
"Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory."
Have a nice day, citizen-unit.
-dj
the problem with an information superhighway is that everyone wants to be a traffic cop
Also, back in We Won For Now, Chris Johnson pointed out how individual and small-scale content creators are just as adversely affected by all these technical and legal hurdles as end consumers (but consumers are far more numerous, not to mention a lot whinier after generations of Consumer Reports and Ralph Nader constantly kvetching there-oughtta-be-a-law). (Can't figure out if there's a way to directly hyperlink to older, now-static comments. Search for Score: 5 "Explanation (of sorts)".) It's good to see an editorial assistant somewhere forwarded that post to an assistant editor, but these fundamental issues deserve a lot more coverage than they're getting...especially on Slashdot.
It'd be scary to see this end up as the test case that decides whether the GPL can be enforced. Bad enough going up against a corporation in court; worse yet when your adversary can simply rattle the voodoo doll of sovereign immunity or national security. (A nation is secure when its people are secure; any group only exists to the extent that it is made up of individuals, and can have no more rights than the individual constituents.)
Also, concentration of power leads not only to abuse, but ease of takeover by the State. Then, normal business precautions suddenly become "Lie on X.509, go to jail", as Duncan Frissell has noted.
I cannot BELIEVE that Click and Clack had the balls to come out on the air and say that it should be illegal to sell/buy cars that were "too powerful" (in their Hog-Fucking opinion). These guys are the Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman of the auto world, and here they come across sounding like Bill Gates. Pricks.
The "rule of Law, and not of men" is an ideal in the real world as well as on the net, but it has repeatedly proven its worth in both environments. (Anarchy means no ruler, not "no rules" -- the net's functionality as an anarchy is declining somewhat with the influx'd tragedy of the commons, but the overall positive effects will eventually outweight this.) Most of what people think of as the "outlaw internet" is actually a very time-tested, freely evolved system of voluntary interaction, just as the so-called "wild west" was actually far more peaceful and law-abiding than many [not necessarily large-scale] present-day environments. And a lot of peoples' negative impressions of the law come from misapplications and abuses of the rule of law, and the perversion of law over time from being a system of justice to the elevation of a privileged class -- lawyers, by and large responsible for most of the current outrages. Hell, under the old common law, landowners could sue railroads for polluting their land via the trespass doctrines, as well as visible damages -- but a good deal of "reform" has made it near-impossible for the average person to obtain any substantive relief without crippling hardship in the form of time and expense. Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses and wasted time. (Abraham Lincoln) The net -- and the world -- work best when we can work out our problems without resorting to guns, whether in the form of the law or in reality. I hope etoy takes the offer of simply both sides dropping (although I'd want it to be with prejudice to ensure that a repeat of the fiasco wouldn't take place at some point), as that's the traditional method on the net: You have your name, we have ours, we don't claim to be each other, and we figure the average person is smart enough to figure we aren't each other.
Regarding resource usage, I forgot to mention I installed Ice on a Sparc ELC (33 Mhz; roughly equivalent to a 486/50) and got very excellent performance (admittedly it had 24Mb of RAM:). As good as E is, I'm sure I wouldn't want to run it on that kind of hardware (runs nice on my roomie's P2-450, tho).
Hurrah - a one point oh release of my favorite WM! Currently I'm still using dfm to provide that little bit of 'extra desktop functionality', but it looks like by the time I upgrade mobo/CPU again Gnome will have ironed out most of the few remaining stability issues.
Slashdot Mirror
I built it from a nightly source tarball a week back and it ran well when I transported my distribution to another Redhat 6 box and unpacked it. I did not, however, manage to get a copy of the "simplebrowser" executable built. Anyone know how to make sure it gets made?
Damn straight.
Wave of the future: corner kiosks for up to the minute updates on legislation, so finally every individual can keep constant tabs on what laws they may or may not be breaking.
Fabrice Bellard wrote LZEXE, which transparently compressed executables under DOS, as well as the 486 mpg123 patch -- yes, MP3 playback on a 486, which I used on a 33Mhz box. Thanks to both of them, we all squeeze more efficiency out of hardware.
-dj
we don't need no steenkin' marriage license
Along those lines, I recommend Richard Epstein's Simple Rules For a Complex World.
What's the URL for this one? I downloaded the "Live in Mexico City" concert in .asf format a while back. First time I tried to play it, Media Player launched Internet Explorer and went to a web page that asked me for an email address -- but every time since then, it plays like any other file. I really ought to get around to splitting it up into mp3's :)
-dj
closet Xena fan(atic)
The Livid-dev mailing list recently spun off a second mailing list to discuss the creation of an "Open DIgital Video" standard or the like. Check the usual websites for more information.
And I don't agree 100% with Proudhon any more than I agree 100% with Ayn Rand. As Ken Kesey said, "Take what you can use, and let the rest go by."
Warning: The monks in alt.sysadmin.recovery might LART me for giving out useful information, so I'll approach it tangentially: You Have Been Trolled. Hope This Helps. Have A Nice Day.
Being replied to with a troll of this quality is more gratifying than any amount of positive moderation. Thanks, AC. You put a genuine smile on my face. Now if only you'd worked in Natalie Portman, grits and a Beowolf cluster...
Certainly. Legal is the mere form of the law; you can dot all your i's and cross all your t's while merrily sending Jews to the gas chambers (to use a Godwinesque metaphor) and still be obeying all the statutes, legislation, orders, etc. Lawful, on the other hand, is concerned with the substance of law, not the mere form/formalities. And this is not my definition; these are legal definitions as recognized in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (the AK-47 of the pro se).
What is lawful cannot be made unlawful. Making something "illegal" means making it malum prohibitum, or "evil because it is prohibited" (i.e., "it's wrong because it's against the law"). Unlawful actions are those which are malum in se, or "evil in and of itself" -- i.e., those actions which are inherently wrong (fraud, theft, assault, murder).
Getting back on track a bit: You don't have any rights that you can't claim, and if you don't object timely, the right is assumed to be waived. The Supreme Court has said -- and keep this in mind at all times when you are the defendant -- regarding any and all rights you can claim:
I agree with the other proactive folks. The best defense is a good offense; and the more the merrier. Let a thousand flowers bloom.Too many people confuse fascism, oligopoly, mercantilism and fraud with actual fair trade. (A truly free market requires informed consumers, not passive drones; but we cannot force everyone to be equally intelligent, nor expect everyone to be equally desirous to live freely.)
Groups can never have more rights than the individuals which comprise them -- the individual is the smallest minority. The privileges of a private guild conflict with the inalienable rights of individuals? Too bad; the latter trumps the former.
A lot of so-called "capitalists" have swallowed the CCA/MPAA lies hook, line and sinker. They think it's about piracy. It's not. What IS it about? A lot of things which can't be easily condensed, as the last few weeks of discussion here have shown. Meanwhile, lots of hackers see "capitalism" as the problem, when it's fascism, mercantilism, oligopoly and the like that they're really upset about -- they just don't realize it.
You already know the State claims you don't even own yourself? Now private guilds are ready to violate your rights just as thoroughly, and abuse the legal power of the State by using sovereign national's police forces as their enforcement arm. Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "property" as
When you lawfully purchase a DVD, do you really own it? Do you only have the right to expose your eyeballs to its images and ears to its sounds? How far may ownership be abrogated -- and by what process is this happening?In the good old days, you were lucky: If you opened the case, all you did was void the warranty. Now, you can be declared a criminal. This harkens back to medieval days, when everyone had "special knowledge" and people were routinely exiled from the guild or killed by its members for revealing the secrets of smithing, healing, or even reading and writing.
But lawful behavior (fair use, reverse engineering and the like) can never be made unlawful, by any amount of legislation. It can only be declared illegal.
Of course it's easy to see how capitalism gets its bad name, given the retarded poster children that get all the press. Steve Gilliard once said, "The reason that some of us are more worried about government power than corporate power is that Coca Cola rarely strafes the villages of Pepsi drinkers." Unfortunately, a lot of groups out there seem to be eagerly competing with governments everywhere to see who can violate the rights of the individual more efficiently and thoroughly. Disney and other companies get together to extend copyrights, while every two-bit jackass who throws together a CGI script slaps a patent on it and sues anyone running a web-based store...
The future, where your only freedom is the freedom to make money (but not too much); where tools like compilers and debuggers are restricted to an elite, privileged and licensed class; where it doesn't matter whether it's government or a corporation giving you the shaft, because they're fascistically intertwined so thoroughly you can't tell one from the other.
"Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory."
Have a nice day, citizen-unit.
-dj
the problem with an information superhighway is that everyone wants to be a traffic cop
Damming the Ocean (which should have been a full fledged article in itself!) warns of just such a future. Other related URL's include
*C Initiative, or, a Control Freak's Wet Dream
Digital Transmission Content Protection
Copy Protection Working Group
Also, back in We Won For Now, Chris Johnson pointed out how individual and small-scale content creators are just as adversely affected by all these technical and legal hurdles as end consumers (but consumers are far more numerous, not to mention a lot whinier after generations of Consumer Reports and Ralph Nader constantly kvetching there-oughtta-be-a-law). (Can't figure out if there's a way to directly hyperlink to older, now-static comments. Search for Score: 5 "Explanation (of sorts)".) It's good to see an editorial assistant somewhere forwarded that post to an assistant editor, but these fundamental issues deserve a lot more coverage than they're getting...especially on Slashdot.
Sounds analagous to wanna-be webmasters who want to know how to "disable" function foo in someone's browser.
It'd be scary to see this end up as the test case that decides whether the GPL can be enforced. Bad enough going up against a corporation in court; worse yet when your adversary can simply rattle the voodoo doll of sovereign immunity or national security. (A nation is secure when its people are secure; any group only exists to the extent that it is made up of individuals, and can have no more rights than the individual constituents.)
Also, concentration of power leads not only to abuse, but ease of takeover by the State. Then, normal business precautions suddenly become "Lie on X.509, go to jail", as Duncan Frissell has noted.
I cannot BELIEVE that Click and Clack had the balls to come out on the air and say that it should be illegal to sell/buy cars that were "too powerful" (in their Hog-Fucking opinion). These guys are the Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman of the auto world, and here they come across sounding like Bill Gates. Pricks.
The "rule of Law, and not of men" is an ideal in the real world as well as on the net, but it has repeatedly proven its worth in both environments. (Anarchy means no ruler, not "no rules" -- the net's functionality as an anarchy is declining somewhat with the influx'd tragedy of the commons, but the overall positive effects will eventually outweight this.) Most of what people think of as the "outlaw internet" is actually a very time-tested, freely evolved system of voluntary interaction, just as the so-called "wild west" was actually far more peaceful and law-abiding than many [not necessarily large-scale] present-day environments. And a lot of peoples' negative impressions of the law come from misapplications and abuses of the rule of law, and the perversion of law over time from being a system of justice to the elevation of a privileged class -- lawyers, by and large responsible for most of the current outrages. Hell, under the old common law, landowners could sue railroads for polluting their land via the trespass doctrines, as well as visible damages -- but a good deal of "reform" has made it near-impossible for the average person to obtain any substantive relief without crippling hardship in the form of time and expense. Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses and wasted time. (Abraham Lincoln) The net -- and the world -- work best when we can work out our problems without resorting to guns, whether in the form of the law or in reality. I hope etoy takes the offer of simply both sides dropping (although I'd want it to be with prejudice to ensure that a repeat of the fiasco wouldn't take place at some point), as that's the traditional method on the net: You have your name, we have ours, we don't claim to be each other, and we figure the average person is smart enough to figure we aren't each other.
For some historical background on this subject, see What License? or, Why You Can Sue Your Doctor But Not Your Lawyer.
Regarding resource usage, I forgot to mention I installed Ice on a Sparc ELC (33 Mhz; roughly equivalent to a 486/50) and got very excellent performance (admittedly it had 24Mb of RAM :). As good as E is, I'm sure I wouldn't want to run it on that kind of hardware (runs nice on my roomie's P2-450, tho).
Hurrah - a one point oh release of my favorite WM! Currently I'm still using dfm to provide that little bit of 'extra desktop functionality', but it looks like by the time I upgrade mobo/CPU again Gnome will have ironed out most of the few remaining stability issues.