As these drives start getting into the area of a few terabytes, they are going to need more cache.
I'm not an expert, but from my rudamentary knowledge of HDD, unless the interface gets faster or the seek times increase, there shouldn't be any more need for cache to achieve the same results.
I'm seroius about not being an expert, so if you see a reason that larger drives need more cache, please explain it or provide a link.
Re:Christian definition of Jewish Messiah
on
1001 Islamic Inventions
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine."
The issue in question is not whether the Jews think that their Messiah is divine. We are talking about your statement, "By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah." We are therefore using Christian definitions both for the Jewish Messiah and the Christian Christ.
You have argued that becuase Jews don't believe that their Messiah is God-become-man (i.e., he is no less God for becoming human, and no less human for being God--as Christians believe) that this makes the Christian belief internally inconsistent. However, Christians do not arrive at their idea of a Jewish Messiah from the Talmud, or any other account of Jewish beliefs, apart from the Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments.
The idea of Christ in Christian theology is a superset of the idea of Messiah _in Christian theology_. Jewish theology did not anticipate that the Messiah would also be God himself in human form. This is not to say that the evidence is not there in the scriptures: upon reading the Scriptures, a Christian concludes that Jewish theology _should have_ anticipated (or at least allowed for) a divine Messiah, but did not.
You quoted an expert who stated, "The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah." That is a statement about what the Jews believe, not the Christians. Even then, it does not approach your assertion that "The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine." Your quoted expert provided us no information useful to answer the question, "Is the Messiah divine?"--except to say that the Talmud is not the place to look. If "the Talmud nowhere indicates a belif in a superhuman Deliverer as Messiah," then we learn nothing from the Talmud about the divinity of the Messiah, we only gain information about the authors of the Talmud.
If what you're saying is that the Christian's idea of Christ is inconsistent with the Jew's idea of Messiah, then, depending on which Christians and Jews you ask, you might be right, but this would not, as you try to do, prove that Messiah Jesus is an oxymoron.
"By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah."
That's a pretty controversial statement to make without support. Perhaps I just don't follow your logic, since the previous sentence seems to mistakenly use "Christian" twice in stead of "Jewish" (in one of those places, though I'm not sure which one).
I would appreciate it if you would clarify this.
Also (and please forgive me for any misconception, as I have already stated that I don't understand what you were trying to say), what is your operating Christian definition that excludes Jesus from being the Jewish Messiah?
I say this because I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus was, is, and will be the Jewish Messiah. It's just that he was rejected by his brothers the first time around (much like Joseph, Moses, and David), and so he was sent to the gentiles (much like Joseph, Moses, and David) for a time, but (much like Joseph, Moses, and David) will return to his people Israel and be their deliverer. The fact that this has not yet happened does not (especially in the eyes of Christians) make him any less the Jewish Messiah.
So, if you would, please clarify your statements in the light of this.
I posted part of this in a thread below, but then I realized the full text of the psalm was relevant to the discussion. The translation is from the NASB (New American Standard Bible).
It does indeed speak of the Messiah ('His Annointed') as being the son of YHWH ('the LORD').
Why are the nations in an uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
"Let us tear their fetters apart
And cast away their cords from us!"
He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
Then He will speak to them in His anger
And terrify them in His fury, saying,
"But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
'You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.'"
Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
And here again from Young's Literal Translation (I'm sorry I don't have online access to any Jewish sources, but I can't imagine they're much different.):
Why have nations tumultuously assembled? And do peoples meditate vanity?
Station themselves do kings of the earth, And princes have been united together, Against Jehovah, and against His Messiah:
`Let us draw off Their cords, And cast from us Their thick bands.'
He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, The Lord doth mock at them.
Then doth He speak unto them in His anger, And in His wrath He doth trouble them:
`And I -- I have anointed My King, Upon Zion -- My holy hill.'
I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, `My Son Thou [art], I to-day have brought thee forth.
Ask of Me and I give nations -- thy inheritance, And thy possession -- the ends of earth.
Thou dost rule them with a sceptre of iron, As a vessel of a potter Thou dost crush them.'
And now, O kings, act wisely, Be instructed, O judges of earth,
Serve ye Jehovah with fear, And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Chosen One, lest He be angry, And ye lose the way, When His anger burneth but a little, O the happiness of all trusting in Him!
Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
I'm sorry you don't follow my logic. I was stating my assumptions so that the conclusions based on them could be seen as separate, but following from them.
I will clarify:
"You seem to think that he doesn't need a compiler."
He thinks he needs a compiler.
My reasoning left us with the only possibility that I did not eliminate: "(2a) you don't think there should be any technical users as he describes them"
"When it comes to production machines..."
Ubuntu, to my knowledge, is geared toward "human beings," not production environments. This discussion never involved production machines. Perhaps the assumption on your part that it did is the misunderstanding at the root of our disagreement. Your statement "When it comes to production machines, technical users should as well." is true, but irrlelvant.
The discussion, from my perspective, has always been about the suitability of compiler-less distrobutions to the technical user (since I was responding to your insistence that a self-proclaimed technical user did not need a compiler).
The grandparent post is claiming that distros without compilers are not for technical users, and that he is a technical user.
You seem to think that he doesn't need a compiler.
Either (1) you are accusing him of not being a technical user, (2a) you don't think there should be any technical users as he describes them, or at least (2b)that he shouldn't be one, (3) you somehow think that technical users can do "everything" they need to without a compiler.
One thing technical users do is exercise their rights under the GPL and similar lisences to modify the source code of programs that they run, and recompile them to suit their own uses. Without people like this, FOSS as we know it today would not exist. (3) is clearly factually wrong and I very much doubt that you have enough information to be justified in asserting (1) or (2b).
I think the only option I have left is to believe that you are a novice Ubuntu fanboy set in his ways who thinks he's an expert and that everyone should do things the way he does.
Gentoo must grate against the very fabric of your existence. I pity you.
For your own safety, please run the following command as root on your computer (please see the forums if you don't konw what that means):
If that's the case, the Linux kernel needs to move to something else
Not if he's perfectly happy using GPL2. GPL2 is a freely-redistributable lisence as long as you keep it intact. Anyone can use it, even to distribute a screen saver that displays "FSF Sucks!" all over the screen, no matter what Stallman or anyone else thinks about it. Torvalds does not need FSF's permission to use its lisence.
As long as Torvalds can interpret GPL2 to mean what he thinks it means (and the courts agree) he has no reason to change anything.
Doesn't the DMCA prevent you circumventing the md5 sumcheck? How does TiVO describe this part of the code -- which I guess is kind of a BIOS? and presumably TiVO's proprietary code?
GPL3 speciffically makes the DMCA inapplicable by stating that the "No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure".
From the DMCA:
Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Yes, and one of those two languages is usually English. Esperanto is unnecessary. Its only "benefit" over English is that it's perported to not come with a culture and so it's not perceived as being quite so dangerous. The problem is that Esperanto does have a culture: it's only spoken by self-important intellectual snobs.
Let's say company.com has been registered with both ICANN and with China's new system.
In China, you would type: company.com.icann or company.com (which is an abbreviation for company.com.china) Everywhere else, you would type company.com.china or company.com (which is an abbreviation for company.com.icann)
Within any network, you can use the hostnames without the network names, and they're assumed.
The current DNS system can be easily adapted to compensate for this (if it's even necessary at all), and if the China servers don't recognize the.icann suffix, that just means everyone will be trying to use the icann system by default, or using local software solutions. In the end, you can point your DNS server anywhere you like.
I was refuting that statement by illustrating that in a society of more than one person, all freedoms are negotiated at the cost of other freedoms.
Anarchy, which is the only state in which an individual is totally free to do whatever he wants, is only freedom if you never interact with another person with equal freedom. Once that happens, individuals must give up their freedoms to restrict others' freedoms, either by common convention or out of fear of reprisals.
The only kind of freedom that is not enforced is the kind experienced by a man alone on an island. Beyond that, ALL freedom is enforced.
"but do not try to bomb their asses until they comply."
Why not? Is that wrong according to your personal code of morality? Why should we care what you say? Aren't you just trying to impose your personal morality on the USA?
If this is your argument, then you are being a hipocrite: you are not holding yourself to the standards that you would impose on others (specifically, you think it's wrong for someone to impose their ethics on another nation, yet you are doing exactly that to the USA by saying what they should and should not do).
The USA was founded on the premise that all human beings everywhere "...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness." It is completely consistent with this notion that if we see injustice going on somewhere, if we see human beings being treated as less than human beings, we have an obligation to help them and not help their oppressors. I freely admit that the USA has not always lived up to the obligations of these ideals (shame on us for not acting sooner), but that does not invalidate them with respect to this case.
If we see injustice and do nothing, then we are hipocrites, because we say one thing and do another.
You claim that you think no one should interfere with another nation's politics, yet here you are trying to convince Americans to alter the policies of their nation. Why should you expect us to convert to your worldview when you don't even practice it yourself?
The whole point of the GPL is so that users of software will be free to modify that software. What you call a rootkit, I call my own bug fixes and/or enhancements.
If you want, company X can create your secure operating system, but in stead of rejecting all code not signed by your company, they can make it run (equally) code signed by company X AND code signed by the user with a key that he provides. That way, if I want to tweak one of the drivers, I can do so, compile and self-sign it, and then be on my merry little way.
The OS will be safe from attacks because it only accepts code signed by company X or me, and neither of us are going to share our private keys with the hackers.
If I want to redistribute the OS, those who recieve the OS from me can add me to the list of trusted signers or they can compile and sign my modifications themselves.
It doesn't, but it makes constructing such a machine pointless because in order to distribute GPL3 software for it, you have to enable the users to run modified versions. This means that if the hardware will only accept code signed with key X, you have to give key X to all your users.
There is no problem distributing a machine that accepts both signed and unsigned code equally, or allows the user to set the signing authority to something else, just as long as user-modified code is able to run on the machine with the same priveledges as vendor-supplied code.
The reason, if you follow the informational link, is that xanu.net posted copyrighted material without permission, and the copyright holder issued a cease and desist.
The reason the order was issued was to silence xanu.net becuause of the unfavorable light it shed on Scientology, but that doesn't mean that the US government (or Google) was involved in suppression of xanu.net, but that xanu.net was publishing materials to which it did not have a copyright, and that fact was leveraged in order for Scientology's lawyers to suppress xanu.net.
To satisfy Google and the US Government, all xanu.net had to do was remove the copyrighted material. They did not have to alter their message in any way, or stop pissing off the Scientologists.
Now, France/Germany vs. the Nazis, and China vs. dissidents is a totally different situation.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
And who was it that told the government to stop you from having sex in public? Hey--it was the PEOPLE! Believe it or not, most people don't want you humping on their sidewalks. I don't care if you like it or not, but a free society is allowed to have standards of modesty.
Please don't try to confuse self-censorship with suppression. The "People's" "Republic" of China is not a free society. If people in China wanted to find certain information about Tibet, Taiwan or Tiananmen Square, they can't get it because the Party doesn't want them to have it. It's not that the Chinese find these subjects offensive, it's that the government doesn't want them to know anything. Knowledge is power.
And by the way, I don't think there's a law that says search engines have to filter sexually explicit results, it's just that people wouldn't tend to use a search engine that shoved sex in their face when they weren't looking for it, especially at work: it's a market-based decision, and the US government had nothing to do with it.
"Removing links to sites that glamourise hatred/terrorism against a nation namely US is filtered"
Who are you accusing of doing that? If it's anyone but the US government, then they have a right to do so, it's called freedom of speech: read the first ammendment. If it's the US government, then they have no right to do that, and you should take them to court: it's called freedom of speech: read the first ammendment.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert, but from my rudamentary knowledge of HDD, unless the interface gets faster or the seek times increase, there shouldn't be any more need for cache to achieve the same results.
I'm seroius about not being an expert, so if you see a reason that larger drives need more cache, please explain it or provide a link.
"The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine."
The issue in question is not whether the Jews think that their Messiah is divine. We are talking about your statement, "By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah." We are therefore using Christian definitions both for the Jewish Messiah and the Christian Christ.
You have argued that becuase Jews don't believe that their Messiah is God-become-man (i.e., he is no less God for becoming human, and no less human for being God--as Christians believe) that this makes the Christian belief internally inconsistent. However, Christians do not arrive at their idea of a Jewish Messiah from the Talmud, or any other account of Jewish beliefs, apart from the Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments.
The idea of Christ in Christian theology is a superset of the idea of Messiah _in Christian theology_. Jewish theology did not anticipate that the Messiah would also be God himself in human form. This is not to say that the evidence is not there in the scriptures: upon reading the Scriptures, a Christian concludes that Jewish theology _should have_ anticipated (or at least allowed for) a divine Messiah, but did not.
You quoted an expert who stated, "The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah." That is a statement about what the Jews believe, not the Christians. Even then, it does not approach your assertion that "The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine." Your quoted expert provided us no information useful to answer the question, "Is the Messiah divine?"--except to say that the Talmud is not the place to look. If "the Talmud nowhere indicates a belif in a superhuman Deliverer as Messiah," then we learn nothing from the Talmud about the divinity of the Messiah, we only gain information about the authors of the Talmud.
If what you're saying is that the Christian's idea of Christ is inconsistent with the Jew's idea of Messiah, then, depending on which Christians and Jews you ask, you might be right, but this would not, as you try to do, prove that Messiah Jesus is an oxymoron.
"By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah."
That's a pretty controversial statement to make without support. Perhaps I just don't follow your logic, since the previous sentence seems to mistakenly use "Christian" twice in stead of "Jewish" (in one of those places, though I'm not sure which one).
I would appreciate it if you would clarify this.
Also (and please forgive me for any misconception, as I have already stated that I don't understand what you were trying to say), what is your operating Christian definition that excludes Jesus from being the Jewish Messiah?
I say this because I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus was, is, and will be the Jewish Messiah. It's just that he was rejected by his brothers the first time around (much like Joseph, Moses, and David), and so he was sent to the gentiles (much like Joseph, Moses, and David) for a time, but (much like Joseph, Moses, and David) will return to his people Israel and be their deliverer. The fact that this has not yet happened does not (especially in the eyes of Christians) make him any less the Jewish Messiah.
So, if you would, please clarify your statements in the light of this.
I posted part of this in a thread below, but then I realized the full text of the psalm was relevant to the discussion. The translation is from the NASB (New American Standard Bible).
It does indeed speak of the Messiah ('His Annointed') as being the son of YHWH ('the LORD').
Why are the nations in an uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
"Let us tear their fetters apart
And cast away their cords from us!"
He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
Then He will speak to them in His anger
And terrify them in His fury, saying,
"But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
'You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.'"
Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
And here again from Young's Literal Translation (I'm sorry I don't have online access to any Jewish sources, but I can't imagine they're much different.):
Why have nations tumultuously assembled? And do peoples meditate vanity?
Station themselves do kings of the earth, And princes have been united together, Against Jehovah, and against His Messiah:
`Let us draw off Their cords, And cast from us Their thick bands.'
He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, The Lord doth mock at them.
Then doth He speak unto them in His anger, And in His wrath He doth trouble them:
`And I -- I have anointed My King, Upon Zion -- My holy hill.'
I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, `My Son Thou [art], I to-day have brought thee forth.
Ask of Me and I give nations -- thy inheritance, And thy possession -- the ends of earth.
Thou dost rule them with a sceptre of iron, As a vessel of a potter Thou dost crush them.'
And now, O kings, act wisely, Be instructed, O judges of earth,
Serve ye Jehovah with fear, And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Chosen One, lest He be angry, And ye lose the way, When His anger burneth but a little, O the happiness of all trusting in Him!
Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
Psalm 2:10-12
I'm sorry you don't follow my logic. I was stating my assumptions so that the conclusions based on them could be seen as separate, but following from them.
I will clarify:
"You seem to think that he doesn't need a compiler."
He thinks he needs a compiler.
My reasoning left us with the only possibility that I did not eliminate: "(2a) you don't think there should be any technical users as he describes them"
"When it comes to production machines..."
Ubuntu, to my knowledge, is geared toward "human beings," not production environments. This discussion never involved production machines. Perhaps the assumption on your part that it did is the misunderstanding at the root of our disagreement. Your statement "When it comes to production machines, technical users should as well." is true, but irrlelvant.
The discussion, from my perspective, has always been about the suitability of compiler-less distrobutions to the technical user (since I was responding to your insistence that a self-proclaimed technical user did not need a compiler).
Does that answer your "So?" question?
The grandparent post is claiming that distros without compilers are not for technical users, and that he is a technical user.
/etc/hosts
You seem to think that he doesn't need a compiler.
Either (1) you are accusing him of not being a technical user,
(2a) you don't think there should be any technical users as he describes them, or at least (2b)that he shouldn't be one,
(3) you somehow think that technical users can do "everything" they need to without a compiler.
One thing technical users do is exercise their rights under the GPL and similar lisences to modify the source code of programs that they run, and recompile them to suit their own uses. Without people like this, FOSS as we know it today would not exist. (3) is clearly factually wrong and I very much doubt that you have enough information to be justified in asserting (1) or (2b).
I think the only option I have left is to believe that you are a novice Ubuntu fanboy set in his ways who thinks he's an expert and that everyone should do things the way he does.
Gentoo must grate against the very fabric of your existence. I pity you.
For your own safety, please run the following command as root on your computer (please see the forums if you don't konw what that means):
echo "127.0.0.1 slashdot.org" >>
Not if he's perfectly happy using GPL2. GPL2 is a freely-redistributable lisence as long as you keep it intact. Anyone can use it, even to distribute a screen saver that displays "FSF Sucks!" all over the screen, no matter what Stallman or anyone else thinks about it. Torvalds does not need FSF's permission to use its lisence.
As long as Torvalds can interpret GPL2 to mean what he thinks it means (and the courts agree) he has no reason to change anything.
GPL3 speciffically makes the DMCA inapplicable by stating that the "No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure".
From the DMCA:
Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Africa: the poster child for tolerance, inclusivism, and getting along with your neighbors.
Yes, and one of those two languages is usually English. Esperanto is unnecessary. Its only "benefit" over English is that it's perported to not come with a culture and so it's not perceived as being quite so dangerous. The problem is that Esperanto does have a culture: it's only spoken by self-important intellectual snobs.
Let's say company.com has been registered with both ICANN and with China's new system.
.icann suffix, that just means everyone will be trying to use the icann system by default, or using local software solutions. In the end, you can point your DNS server anywhere you like.
In China, you would type: company.com.icann or company.com (which is an abbreviation for company.com.china)
Everywhere else, you would type company.com.china or company.com (which is an abbreviation for company.com.icann)
Within any network, you can use the hostnames without the network names, and they're assumed.
The current DNS system can be easily adapted to compensate for this (if it's even necessary at all), and if the China servers don't recognize the
I was refuting that statement by illustrating that in a society of more than one person, all freedoms are negotiated at the cost of other freedoms.
Anarchy, which is the only state in which an individual is totally free to do whatever he wants, is only freedom if you never interact with another person with equal freedom. Once that happens, individuals must give up their freedoms to restrict others' freedoms, either by common convention or out of fear of reprisals.
The only kind of freedom that is not enforced is the kind experienced by a man alone on an island. Beyond that, ALL freedom is enforced.
Therefore, "enforced freedom" is not an oxymoron.
Why not? Is that wrong according to your personal code of morality? Why should we care what you say? Aren't you just trying to impose your personal morality on the USA?
If this is your argument, then you are being a hipocrite: you are not holding yourself to the standards that you would impose on others (specifically, you think it's wrong for someone to impose their ethics on another nation, yet you are doing exactly that to the USA by saying what they should and should not do).
The USA was founded on the premise that all human beings everywhere "...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness." It is completely consistent with this notion that if we see injustice going on somewhere, if we see human beings being treated as less than human beings, we have an obligation to help them and not help their oppressors. I freely admit that the USA has not always lived up to the obligations of these ideals (shame on us for not acting sooner), but that does not invalidate them with respect to this case.
If we see injustice and do nothing, then we are hipocrites, because we say one thing and do another.
You claim that you think no one should interfere with another nation's politics, yet here you are trying to convince Americans to alter the policies of their nation. Why should you expect us to convert to your worldview when you don't even practice it yourself?
The whole point of the GPL is so that users of software will be free to modify that software. What you call a rootkit, I call my own bug fixes and/or enhancements.
If you want, company X can create your secure operating system, but in stead of rejecting all code not signed by your company, they can make it run (equally) code signed by company X AND code signed by the user with a key that he provides. That way, if I want to tweak one of the drivers, I can do so, compile and self-sign it, and then be on my merry little way.
The OS will be safe from attacks because it only accepts code signed by company X or me, and neither of us are going to share our private keys with the hackers.
If I want to redistribute the OS, those who recieve the OS from me can add me to the list of trusted signers or they can compile and sign my modifications themselves.
It doesn't, but it makes constructing such a machine pointless because in order to distribute GPL3 software for it, you have to enable the users to run modified versions. This means that if the hardware will only accept code signed with key X, you have to give key X to all your users.
There is no problem distributing a machine that accepts both signed and unsigned code equally, or allows the user to set the signing authority to something else, just as long as user-modified code is able to run on the machine with the same priveledges as vendor-supplied code.
You do not have the freedom to murder me, and that allows me to freely live in the same society with you. If you had that right, I would not be free.
In order for us to be free to walk on the sidewalks, we all have to give up our freedom to drive wherever we want.
The only freedom that the GPL restricts is the freedom to restrict someone else's freedom.
Anarcy isn't all that it's cracked-up to be.
Please see my reply to this ancestor post:5 81151
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175383&cid=14
The law in this case does not discriminate on the substance of the content, but on the fact that someone owns the copyright to the content.
You, sir, seem to be in ignorance of the law.
Ah, but WHY?
The reason, if you follow the informational link, is that xanu.net posted copyrighted material without permission, and the copyright holder issued a cease and desist.
The reason the order was issued was to silence xanu.net becuause of the unfavorable light it shed on Scientology, but that doesn't mean that the US government (or Google) was involved in suppression of xanu.net, but that xanu.net was publishing materials to which it did not have a copyright, and that fact was leveraged in order for Scientology's lawyers to suppress xanu.net.
To satisfy Google and the US Government, all xanu.net had to do was remove the copyrighted material. They did not have to alter their message in any way, or stop pissing off the Scientologists.
Now, France/Germany vs. the Nazis, and China vs. dissidents is a totally different situation.
The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
-United States Constitution: Article I Section 8
That's why it's pronounced nuk-ya-lar.
And who was it that told the government to stop you from having sex in public? Hey--it was the PEOPLE! Believe it or not, most people don't want you humping on their sidewalks. I don't care if you like it or not, but a free society is allowed to have standards of modesty.
Please don't try to confuse self-censorship with suppression. The "People's" "Republic" of China is not a free society. If people in China wanted to find certain information about Tibet, Taiwan or Tiananmen Square, they can't get it because the Party doesn't want them to have it. It's not that the Chinese find these subjects offensive, it's that the government doesn't want them to know anything. Knowledge is power.
And by the way, I don't think there's a law that says search engines have to filter sexually explicit results, it's just that people wouldn't tend to use a search engine that shoved sex in their face when they weren't looking for it, especially at work: it's a market-based decision, and the US government had nothing to do with it.
"Removing links to sites that glamourise hatred/terrorism against a nation namely US is filtered"
Who are you accusing of doing that? If it's anyone but the US government, then they have a right to do so, it's called freedom of speech: read the first ammendment. If it's the US government, then they have no right to do that, and you should take them to court: it's called freedom of speech: read the first ammendment.